IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an order of remand nullifies subsequent amendments, necessitating a return to the original claims in the appeal process.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.36 of 2003, dated 18.2.2008, on the file of Sub-Court,Sivakasi confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.113 of 1998, dated 7.8.2003, on the file of District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.36 of 2003, dated 18.2.2008, on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.113 of 1998, dated 7.8.2003, on the file of District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is for injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.36 of 2003, on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi. The First Appellate Court by its order, dated 7.8.2003, remanded the matter back to the file of trial Court with liberty to the plaintiff to amend the prayer in the suit to incorporate the prayer for declaration and possession. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the defendants have preferred an appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.3 of 2005 before this Court. The said C.M.A was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order of remand and the matter was sent back to the First Appellate Court to decide the First Appeal afresh. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on merits. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come by way of this Second Appeal.

3. According to the appellant/Plaintiff, the suit properties belong to one Gurusamy, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit properties were purchased by Gurusamy and his brother Sankaralingam from one Subbiah. Later on, there was an oral partition among brothers and the suit properties were allotted to the share of Gurusamy. Thus Gurusamy was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plainfiff purchased the suit properties under sale deed 28.05.1992 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by mutation of revenue records. The defendants, who are none other than the wife, daughter and son in law of the said Gurusamy, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for injunction.

4. The defendants in their written statement disputed the claim made by the plaintiff that the suit properties belong to Gurusamy. It was claimed by the defendants that a portion of the second schedule property belong to the first defendant. The allegation in the plaint as if the suit properties were purchased by Gurusamy and his brother Sankaralingam from one Subbiah were denied in the written statement. It was also claimed that some of the suit properties were purchased by Gurusamy and his brother and the said properties were partitioned by way of registered partition in the year 1984. Under the said partition, some of the suit properties were allotted to the share of Gurusamy. The allegation in the plaint with regard to enjoyment and possession of the suit properties by Gurusamy was denied. The defendants also raised the plea regarding creation of charge over the portion of the suit properties in favour of first defendant in a decree passed in O.S.No.239 of 1992. The sale deeds relied on by the plaintiff to claim right over suit properties under Gurudamy were denied as invalid transactions. Thus the defendants, who disputed the plaintiffs’s title as well as possession over the suit properties, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. As mentioned earlier, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal filed by the plaintiff, the same was remanded back to the file of the trial Court, with a direction to amend the plaint. The remand order was set aside. The remand order passed by the First Appellate Court was set aside by this Court in C.M.A.No.3 of 2005. After the order passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.3 of 2005, as per the order of r