The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the Appellate Court to provide clear findings on the disagreement with the trial Court's findings before remanding a case, the importance of giving reasons for remand, and the need for the Appellate Court to record evidence and decide the matter if evidence on record is sufficient.

1. The appeal has been filed against the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Court, setting aside the Decree of dismissal for fresh disposal by the trail Court. The point for consideration by this Court is very limited namely, whether the Appellate Court is justified in remanding the matter to the Trial Court?

2. Appellant is the defendant before the trial Court and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent herein filed suit for declaration of title and for delivery of possession of by schedule properties and for damages. The said suit was contested by the appellant herein. After elaborate trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit by a Decree and Judgment dated 112. 2001. Against the said Judgment the respondent preferred in A.S.No.54/2002. In the said Appeal respondent took out two I.As in I.A.No.129 of 2003 and I.A.No.130 of 2003. I.A.No.129 of 2003 was filed under Order 41 rule 21 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to seek permission to let in further oral evidence in the Appeal. I.A.No.130 of 2003 was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 and read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to receive the additional documentary evidence.

3. Whiledealing with the said applications the Appellate Court went into the details with regard to the boundary of the property and the contradiction between the Advocate Commissioners Report and Ex.A.1 patta and surveyors report. However, the Appellate Court without giving any finding with regard to as to how the trial Court Decree and Judgment is not sustainable, merely based on the contradiction regarding boundary remanded the matter as follows:-

"18. In this connection the suit property belonged to the Appellants husband Viswanatha Achari. She being lone of the several heirs cannot filed suit for declaration of title without joining the other heirs of Viswanatha Achari viz sons and daughters of him thus giving room for non-joinder of necessary parties. Merely the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 son and daughter were examined to state that they have no objection for filed the suit exclusively by the plaintiff will not prove the legal defect in the framing and filing of the suit. So the appellant alone filing without joining other heirs of Viswanatha Achari is not maintainable. Suit suffers for lit is non-joinder for necessary party to the suit will have impact this case. In the above circumstances I hold that Appeal has to be allowed while remanding the matter to the Trail Court with a direction for fresh disposal as early as possible no costs.

19. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, while setting aside the Decree and Judgment of the Trail Court and the suit is remanded back to the Trail Court for fresh disposal according to law and the Trail Court is directed to dispose the case as early as possible. Both parties are directed to appear before the Trail Court on 26.09.2003. No costs."

4. Aggrieved by the remand order, the defendant filed the appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit filed by the respondent herein was dismissed on appreciation of pleadings and evidence and the matter was taken to Appellate Court by the respondent herein. Without giving any findings as to how the findings reached by the trial Court are wrong the Appellate Court simply remanded the matter and it is against law. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the applications filed by the respondents without any discussion, were allowed I.A.No.129 of 2003 itself was for adducing oral evidence and I.A.No.130 of 2003 was for marking of additional documents. Without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein the first Appellate Court without giving any reasons allowed the applications and therefore the said orders liable to be set aside.

5. The learnedcounsel relied upon two Judgments of this Court in Poolar Vs. Gomathi Moopanar and 2 Others reported in 1996 (II) CTC 539. In that case, the Appellate Court remanded the suit for fresh trial pointing out some defects in th