The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of remand should not be passed as a matter of course and without proper assessment of the evidence and legal provisions. Additionally, an appeal may not be maintainable if the findings in another suit between the same parties have become final.

1. The appellant is the successful plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 307 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Arni. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2006 passed in A.S. No. 20 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein, remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal.

2. According to the appellant, the suit in O.S. No. 307 of 1994 was filed by him against the defendants for the following relief:-

"a. Restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., by means of a permanent injunction from putting up any constructions over the 'B' schedule property

b. Directing the defendants to remove the structures put up in the 'B' schedule property by means of a mandatory injunction failing which remove the same through court at the costs of the defendants

bb. Declare the title of the plaintiff with regard to the 'B' schedule property and direct the defendants to deliver possession of the 'B' schedule property after removing the encroachments failing which deliver it through Court

c. Award costs of this suit and pass further suitable orders as this Honourable Court deem it fit and proper under the circumstances."

3. According to the appellant, the property belonged to his mother Peruma Ammal @ Selvam and she has purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 02.05.1960. The said Peruma Ammal @ Selvam died in the year 1983 and her husband pre-deceased her. On the death of his mother, her sons namely the appellant and one another son Thangarajan were in joint possession of the 'A' schedule property. The appellant, being the eldest son, as Manager and Kartha of the joint family, managing the family property and the appellant was in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. In the 'A' schedule property, the appellant left open space on the Eastern and Western side and the Western side is specifically left out with an intention to drain the roof rain water as well as for repairing the wall, roof etc., which is described as 'B' schedule in the plaint. The 'B' schedule property forms part and parcel of the 'A' schedule property. The defendants in the suit are pangalis and their house is situate on the west of the 'B' schedule property. On 22.04.1994, the defendants suddenly encroached on the northern side of the 'B' schedule property which is more fully shown as E F G H in the plaint plan and put up some structures day and night continuously. The defendants have also intended to encroach upon the remaining 'B' schedule property. Under those circumstances, the suit came to be filed for bare injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction over 'B' schedule property and also for mandatory injunction to remove the structures already put up by them. Pending suit, since the first defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff/appellant and obtained interim order in O.S.No. 402 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Arni and on the strength of the injunction order the first defendant/respondent herein also put up some construction in the 'B' schedule property during the month of December 1994 inter alia denying the title of the plaintiff/appellant herein, it has become necessary for the plaintiff/appellant to seek for declaration and injunction.

4. The suit was resisted by the first defendant/respondent herein as well as the second defendant in the suit. As stated supra, after filing of the suit by the plaintiff/appellant herein in O.S. No. 307 of 1994, the first defendant has filed O.S. No. 402 of 1994 before the Additional District Munsif, Arni. In that suit, the plaintiff (respondent herein) claimed that the suit property is situate in a gramanatham land and it was jointly enjoyed by his father and therefore he acquired title by adverse possession. In that suit, the plaintiff/appellant herein was described as joint owner. It was also claimed in that suit that the