The relevant facts in this miscellaneous appeal against an order of remand lie within a narrow compass. One Subramania was the original owner of the property in dispute for the recovery of which the suit out of which this appeal arises has been filed. He had usufructuarily mortgaged the property to one Marudamuthu Padayachi on 4th December, 1893, for Rs. 40. The plaintiff claims title from the heirs of Subramania, he having purchased the suit property from them by a registered sale-deed, dated 25th February, 1948. These heirs claimed that the usufructuary mortgage had become extinguished by reason of the provisions of Madras Act (IV of 1938) and that consequently they were entitled to recover possession of the property and they transferred their title in the property to the plaintiff. On the other hand the case of the contesting defendants who claim under the usufructuary mortgagee Marudamuthu was twofold. First they pleaded that the property sold to the plaintiff under the deed of sale, dated 25th February, 1948, was not the property mortgaged to them and of which they were in possession, secondly they contended that Subramania had by an unregistered deed, dated 18th Augus