Remand of the appeal to the trail Court by appellate authority.

The appellants are the plaintiffs before the trial court. They instituted O.S.No1187 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Kancheepuram for declaration that the first appellant is entitled to ‘D’ schedule properties and for directing defendants 1 and 2 to hand over vacant possession of the same. The other reliefs claimed are recovery of vacant possession of A, B and C Schedule properties and for directing the respondent to render accounts of his management of A to D Schedule properties from the year 1975-76 onwards till delivery of possession. Appellants 1 and 3 are husband and wife. The second appellant is their son. The respondent is the son of the first appellant’s aunt. The second defendant in the suit is the mother of the respondent. The case of the appellants is that plaint A and B Schedule lands were allotted to the shares of appellants 1 and 2 respectively under Ex.A-4 partition deed dated 14. 1970. The ‘C’ Schedule properties were purchased by third appellant. The 1st appellant is in enjoyment of ‘D’ Schedule properties as their absolute owner. The respondent was entrusted with the management of all the plaint items with a direction to collect the Waram or Kuthagai from the tenants and hand over the same to the appellants. The respondent was paid 10 bags of paddy per bogum as his remuneration. Defendants 3 to 10 are the tenants of the suit lands. And the respondent had failed to render accounts from Fasli 1385 (1975-76) onwards.

2. The respondent disputed his liability to render accounts. He pleaded that he had surrendered possession of all items of plaint A, B and ‘C’ Schedule properties except Survey Nos.181/1 and 181/2. ‘D’ Schedule properties were given as a gift to his mother by the father of first appellant. He also contended that he was never an agent nor was he paid 10 bags of paddy per bogum as his remuneration for management. According to him, the appellants themselves have directly leased out the properties to tenants for Fasli 1386. He never collected any rent from the alleged tenants. He had paid rent in full for Fasli 1386 and nothing more is due to the appellants. He is not liable to hand over possession of Survey Nos.181/1 and 181/2 and the ‘D’ Schedule properties. He is a cultivating tenant of items 2and 3 of ‘C Schedule. The properties were never entrusted with him for management. Defendants 3 to 10 are in possession.

3. The trial court granted the declaration that the appellants are the owners of ‘D’ Schedule property and directed the respondent to deliver possession of ‘D’ Schedule property and items 2 and 3 of ‘C’ Schedule. Besides, it passed a decree for rendition of accounts against the respondent from 1975-76 till delivery of possession in respect of A, B, C and D Schedule items. The respondent was directed to pay the cost of the suit to the appellants. Thereupon the respondent herein took up the matter in appeal before learned Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram in A.S.No.123 of 1983 on his file. His mother the second defendant died pending suit. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal without cost, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded back the suit to learned District Munsif for fresh disposal according to law. Aggrieved by the said decision the plaintiffs have preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal.

4. Both sides admitted in this Court that pending this C.M.A. the appellants have taken possession of items 2 and 3 of ‘C Schedule through court by proceeding in execution.

5.Thiru P.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the order of remand on these grounds:

1. Since the findings of the trial court in regard to the plaint ‘D’ Schedule lands are confirmed by learned Subordinate Judge, the remitting of the entire case for fresh disposal is unsustainable.

2. The finding of the lower appellate court on the status of the respondent as a cultivating tenant is contrary to law.

3. The lower appellate court did not give