1. The learned Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the first issue. The District Munsif has found that the plaintiffs have not proved the relationship set up by them. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of the deceased Krishnamachariar and has remanded the suit for trial of the other issues. Although the appeal has taken the form of a civil miscellaneous appeal against an order of remand the Subordinate Judge is a final Judge of fact and the only grounds available to the appellant to attack the judgment are those which would be available to him in second appeal : see Venganayyan v. Ramaswami Ayyan (1896) 19 Mad. 422 and Joseph Armugam Pillai v. Muruga Pillai [1909] 6 M.L.J.

198. The question, therefore, is: Is the judgment of the Subordinate Judge one with which we can interfere in second appeal ? The argument on behalf of the appellant is mainly that there is no evidence in support of the finding. After carefully going through the judgment and the material on which that judgment is based, we agree with the appellants contention.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge purports to act, firstly, on the oral