Only to fill up lacuna remand cannot be made.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. This appeal is directed by defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 in O.S. No. 49 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pattukottai (Respondents in the same order in A.S. No. 170 of 1984 on the file of the District Court, West Thanjavur) against the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are appellants-Plaintiffs in A.S. No. 170 of 1984, filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiffs as set out before the trial Court can be briefly stated as follows:

3. The suit properties consist of our items and they originally belonged to one Ramasamy Thevar. He is alleged to have executed three settlement deeds Exs. A3, A4 and A5 and a sale deed Ex. A6 in favour of the fourth defendant, Seethalakshmi, Alamelumangai and the sixth defendant respectively. The sixth defendant is a close friend of Ramasami Thevar. The ninth defendant is alleged to be in possession of some of the properties through the daughter of Ramasamy Thevar, the tenth defendant. The tenth defendant is the husband of the fourth defendant. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Ramasami Thevar executed a Will under Ex. A35, dated 9.10.1981 in favour of the present plaintiffs in respect of the Plaint A Schedule properties, while the B Schedule properties were dealt with under Exs. A3 to A6 as already stated above. Ramasami Thevar died on 21.11.1981. the Defendants put forward a case that the said Ramasami Thevar revoked the earlier will under Ex. A35 and executed another will under Ex. B113 dated 18.11.1981 in favour of one Rani, one of the three daughters of Kalaivani and under the said will, in A Schedule properties, 1 acre 20 cents have been given to the seventh defendant for life and thereafter it should revert to defendants 5 and 6 absolutely, and out of the B Schedule properties, 10 acres 75 cents have been given to Rani, who is not a party to the suit. C Schedule properties under Ex. B113 had been given to the fourth defendant, while D Schedule properties had been given to the first defendant and the outstandings were given to the plaintiffs.

4. The defendants filed separate written statements, wherein they contended that the above settlement deeds and the sale deed are not sham and nominal as contended by the plaintiffs; but they were all true and valid, and that in pursuance of the same the settlees and the vendees have taken possession and that they have prescribed title by prescription for more than the statutory period. The alleged family arrangement in 1973 is false and the same was invented for the purpose of the suit. They also denied the truth, validity and genuineness of the will dated 9.10.1981 alleged to have been executed by Ramasami Thevar. But, they contended that Ramasami Thevar executed will under Ex. B113, dated 18.11.1981 and they have taken possession of those properties as per the will. According to them, the suit is engineered by one Vaira Thevar, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. The sale deed in favour of the eighth defendant in 1959 by Ramasami Thevar in respect of items 7 to 10 of B Schedule is true and valid. The eighth defendant transferred the same to the fifth defendant and according to the fifth defendant, she along with her daughter minor Rani and the sixth defendant are in exclusive possession of items 7 to 9 of B Schedule. Defendants 8 and 9 contended that they are unnecessary parties to the suit.

5. The trial Court framed as many as 11 issues and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the same and in view of the findings on issues 1 to 5, 8 and 9 came to the conclusion that the settlement deeds and the sale deed executed by Ramasami Thevar on 18.11.1959 are not sham and nominal documents, that they were duly acted upon by the parties, that they are not void and inoperative, that the family arrangement of 1973 is not true, valid and implemented and that the settlees under the documen