An appellate court should not remand a case for fresh disposal after finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case, as there is no need for further evidence. The court should dismiss the suit instead.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1186 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, has filed the present appeal against the order of remand made by the learned District Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore in A.S. No. 81 of 1989.

2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. No. 1186 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and for future mesne profits. It is contended by the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property and the properties situate on the north, south and west thereof from one Lilly Daniel in and by sale deed dated 27-1-1980 for valid consideration, that possession also was handed over, that a thatched house was put up in the property, that the same was leased out to the defendants father on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-, that a rent deed dated 1-11-1980 was also executed by the defendants father and that the defendants father was living there with his sons. According to the plaintiff, for convenience, a partition wall was raised and that the defendants father and his brother Ponnu David were in occupation of a portion while the defendant occupied the other portion and that the defendants father handed over possession of the western portion of the thatched house and that the defendant promised to vacate the eastern portion in his occupation. The plaintiff would further aver that he is living in a poramboke which belongs to a Church, that though he has an interest in the house at Anaikuppam, he is not in a position to occupy the same as his other brothers are living there and since the defendant refused to vacate the suit property, the suit has been laid for the above mentioned reliefs.

3. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit contending that the alleged sale deed dated 27-1-1980 in favour of the plaintiff is not true, valid and supported by consideration, that the vendor of the plaintiff viz., Lilly Daniel has no title to the suit property, that she was never in possession nor had she asserted title at any point of time, that the defendants predecessors-in-title and himself have been in possession of the property openly and continuously adverse to the interest of anyone else for more than the statutory period, that is from 1964. The suit property had been described wrongly. The defendant denied the allegations that the properties south, north and east of the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was put in possession of the same and that a thatched house was put up in the same, which was rented out to the defendants father under a rental agreement dated 1-11-1980. The defendant further denied that his father was residing in a portion and that he was residing in the eastern portion and that he promised to vacate. He further contended that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, that the plaintiff is his brother-in-law and that due to ill-feeling between his father and himself, the defendants father is colluding with the plaintiff to grab the suit property from the defendant. According to the defendant, he has been residing in the suit property from 1964 by putting up a hut and that he is in occupation of east west 33 feet and north south 110 feet in T.S. No. 2532-2536, which is situate on the west of the Church property, east of one Jayapals property, north of Manjakuppam Road and south of one Kesava Naidus property. The defendant also contended that in the year 1980 when the dispute arose between the defendant and that his father and the plaintiff colluded and brought into existence bogus sale deed and rent deed. Further, on the date of the rent deed, the defendants father was living only with the plaintiff while the defendant and his brother were living in the suit property and that the rent deed is not true and valid and is a collusive and fraudulent one got up to grab the property from the defendant and his brothers. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 10-4-1981 to the defendant for which the