The main legal point established in the judgment is the specific circumstances under which a case can be remanded to the trial Court, as outlined in Order 41 Rule 25 CPC.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

1. The compendium of the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sanjeev Kumar minor adopted son of late Mool Raj respondent-No. 1 -plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiff) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 19.4.1993 (Ex.P5) executed by Ramesh Chand son of Bajurgu-defendant No.3 in favour of Ram Kumar son of Basant Ram and Rajinder Pal son of Ram Lal-appellant defendant Nos.1 and 2 and subsequent sale deed dated 14.2.1995 (Ex.P6) executed by them in favour of Kulwinder Kaur wife of Harnam Singh appellant No.3-defendant No.4 (hereinafter to be referred as "the defendants") are illegal, null, void and not binding on his (plaintiff) rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.4 from alienating in any manner and raising any construction over the suit property. The plaintiff filed the suit as a minor, but during its pendency, he attained the majority and prosecuted the case and filed the amended plaint in the capacity of major.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that original owner Bajurgu had four sons, namely, Ved Parkash, Mool Raj, Satanjiv and Ramesh Chand. As Mool Raj was unmarried, therefore, he had adopted the plaintiff as his son, vide adoption deed dated 21.6.1983. After his death, the plaintiff succeeded and inherited the property in dispute of his adopted father Mool Raj and became its sole owner. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.3 has illegally sold the suit land to defendant Nos.1 and 2, vide registered sale deed (Ex.P5) and they further sold it to defendant No.4, vide registered sale deed (Ex.P6) without any legal right.

3. Concisely, according to the plaintiff, he is the owner, but the defendants have alienated the suit property, vide two indicated sale deeds in the manner described here-in-above without any alienable right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in the manner detailed here-in above.

4. The contesting defendants resisted the suit. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement, while defendant No.4 filed her separate written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of suit; locus standi & cause of action of the plaintiff, collusion of plaintiff with defendant No.3-vendor and one Kishan Chand. On merits, it was claimed that they have purchased the disputed property from its owner Ramesh Chand defendant No.3, who is none else, but brother of Mool Raj, father of the plaintiff. Succinctly, according to contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2, they were and now defendant No.4 is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute as bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. It may be added that defendant No.3 toed the line of pleadings of the plaint.

5. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff inherited and succeeded to the disputed property left behind by Mul Raj and as such became its owner as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the impugned sale deeds dated 19.4.93 and 14.2.95 are illegal and null and void and as such inoperative against the plaintiff qua the suit property? OPP

3. Is plaintiff entitled to the relief of a declaration as claimed through this suit? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of a permanent prohibitory i