JUDGMENT

1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff came into Court darning to be the owner of a residential h use, fully described in the plaint, and sued for recovery of possession and damages against certain defendants alleged to be in possession as trespassers. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants were the heirs and representatives of two persons whom he had let into (possession of the premises in the month of April 1917 on a three years' lease. He pleaded that in a subsequent suit, brought to enforce the terms of the alleged covenant of lease, the defendants had denied his title. He, there fore, said for ejectment of the defendant as trespassers and for a sum of Rs. 46 by way of damages on account of their use and occupation of the house. The defendant: pat the plaintiff to proof of his title am pleaded further that they and their predecessors had held possession of the house in suit adversely to the plaintiff for a period of 40 years. The Trial Court fixed two issues, one on the question of title and one on the question of possession, but decided the two issues together in a some what confused Judgment which we can only s interpret as being a finding in favour of the defendants on the question of adverse possession only. The suit having been dismissed on this ground the plaintiff appealed. The lower Appellate Court has infinitely found in favour of the plaintiff on the question of title and on the question of possession. There having been no finding by the Trial Court on the question of damages, the learned Subordinate Judge, instead of going into the question himself of remitting an issue to the Trial Court, has exercised his powers under Order XLI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code, to remand the whole case to the Court of first instance. The appeal before us is by one of the defendants. In substance, two points are taken. The first of these is that the finding of the lower Appellate Court on the question of possession is based in part upon inadmissible evidence, namely, upon a certain rent agreement of the 15th of April 1917, which was inadmissible in evidence by reasons of the provisions of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, XVI of 1908. We do not find that this objection was taken in the Trial Court. The document was denounced by the defendants as a forgery and there was much controversy in both the Courts below as to whether or not its execution was proved. But there is not a word in the judgment of the Trial Court as to the admissibility of the document in evidence. We doubt, under the circumstances, whether the learned Subordinate Judge should have allowed the point to be taken in any case, we are not prepared to dissent from his view, which is that he has not received the document in evidence of any contract of lease, or other transaction affecting the Immovable property in suit, but has merely treated it as an item of evidence bearing on the question of the date on which certain persons, the predecessors-in-title of the defendants, entered into possession of certain premises. The other point urged in appeal is that the lower Appellate Court has abused its powers of remand under Order XLI, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. We certainly consider that the order in question was in improper one and unfair to the parties, who were clearly entitled to a final decision from the Court of first appeal and to be pared the necessity of further proceedings in the Trial Court and the possibility of mother first appeal from any decree which that Court might finally pass. It would se obviously competent for us to substitute for the order under appeal an order remitting an issue under Order XXI, Rule 25, Civil Procedure Code; but in view mere particularly of the fact that the plaintiff-respondent is not represented at the hearing of this appeal, we think the most suitable course for us to adopts to pass an order disposing of the suit finally at this stage. The lower Appellate Court might undoubtedly have