The remand order should not be made as a routine manner, and the Appellate Court can appoint a Commissioner to locate the subject property and its measurements.

1. These Appeals have been filed challenging the order of remand dated 29.04.2005 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court Chennai in A.S.Nos.154 and 155 of 2003, setting aside the common judgment and decrees dated 11.09.2002 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.Nos.10549 and 10750 of 1996.

2. The Appellant herein is the Plaintiff in OS.No.10750 of 1996 and is the Defendant, in O.S.No.10549 of 1996. The 1st Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.10549 of 1996 and is the 1st Defendant in O.S.No.10750 of 1996. For convenience, the parties will be described as arrayed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.10750 of 1996.

3. The case of the Plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The Plaintiff is the owner of flat. No. ‘C’ situated in the north eastern corner at No.6, Ground Floor, Jawahar Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-92 together with undivided 410/7260 shares of land bearing Nos.12 and 13 in S.No.289/1 in 104, Virugambakkam Village, which was purchased by means of a registered Sale Deed dated 11.12.1991 from A. Manickam, B. Thiagarajan and T. Shanthi represented by their Power of Attorney Holder, the 2nd Defendant, viz., Pugalendhi, marked as Ex.B-1. According to the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant had agreed to build the flats in the subject property in pursuance of an agreement entered into with him. Since the 2nd Defendant had delayed the construction beyond the agreed period of 12 months and did not make adequate progress to hand over the possession to the Plaintiff, he filed O.P.No.1656 of 1993 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Chennai, for deficiency of service of the 2nd Defendant, and the said Forum directed the 2nd Defendant to Complete the work within a month apart from awarding damages of Rs.10,000/-. But the 2nd Defendant did not comply with the same and on the other hand, he filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Forum in A.P.No.23/96, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the entire work was completed and the Plaintiff took physical possession of the suit property, namely, flat No.C along with undivided 410/7260 shares.

(b) It is the further case of the Plaintiff that he was working in Kalpakkam Atomic Power Project and he had performed house warming ceremony on 19.05.1996 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, on 28.05.1996, he was informed that the 1st Defendant, tried to break open the lock and he lodged a Complaint with the Inspector of Police, Virugambakkam. Since the defendants were trying to disturb the possession and enjoyment, the Plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S.No.10750 of 1996 seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(c) According to the 1st Defendant, he had purchased 445/7260 undivided share in the subject land from the Power Agent of the owners of the property i.e. the 2nd Defendant together with a north east corner flat bearing No. ‘A’ (according to the Plaintiff, it is flat No. ‘C’ at the ground floor. Therefore, the 1st Defendant is a bona fide purchaser of the said flat together with undivided shares in the land and no one can claim title or right whatsoever in the same. According to the 1st Defendant, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the Plaintiff, who attempted to trespass into the suit property claiming that he is the owner of the flat. Hence, the 1st Defendant lodged a Complaint on 27.05.1996 and also filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.10549 of 1996 i.e. prior to the Plaintiff’s Suit seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit property.

(d) The Trial Court tried both the Suits together and framed issues separately and on the side of the Plaintiff, he examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-20 and on the side of the Defendants P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A