ORDER

1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 tule 1(u) of Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 23.3.2019 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2015 and Civil Appeal No.40/2015, whereby learned appellate Court after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has remanded the matter after framing four additional issues.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter-alia on the ground that they have purchased suit property from defendants No.1 to 3 and one Pratap Singh and Santosh vide registered sale-deed dated 27.6.2003 and had obtained the possession thereof. On the basis of aforesaid sale, their names were mutated in the revenue record. It is their case that defendants No.1 and 2 with malafide intention sold the suit property to defendant No.4 vide sale-deed dated 16.10.2009 and further the defendant No.4 sold the same to defendants No.6 to 8 vide sale-deed dated 4.1.2011 during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought a declaration that sale-deed executed by defendants No.1 and 2 is null & void and that they are the owner in the possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale-deed dated 27.6.2003. The plaintiffs also sought a decree of permanent injunction.

3. The defendant No.1 and 2 filed a common written statement denying the plaint averments. It is their case that they are the joint owner of the suit property along with defendant No.3 and Santosh. It is their case that even though they were major on the date of execution of the sale-deed dated 27.6.2003, they were shown as minor in the sale-deed and the sale-deed was executed on their behalf by defendant No.3, who is their mother. They submit that since they had share in the suit property, the mother could not have sold their share without their consent. The defendant No.1 and 2 also filed a counter claim seeking a declaration that they are the co-owner of the suit property and that the sale-deed dated 27.6.2003 is null & void to the extent of their share in the property.

4. The defendants No.3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 also filed their separate written statement supporting the case of defendants No.1 & 2.

5. The learned Trial Court after framing necessary issues and taking evidence of both the sides, decreed the suit while dismissed the counter claim vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2014. The plaintiffs were declared to be the owner in possession of the suit property and the sale-deed dated 8.7.2010 executed by defendants No.1 & 2 was declared as null & void. Further, the saledeed executed by defendant no.4 in favour of defendants No.6 & 7 during the pendency of the suit was also declared as null & void.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant No.1, 2, 6 & 7 filed an appeal, whereas defendant No.4 filed a separate appeal. The defendant No.1, 2, 6 & 7 filed an application under Order 14 rule 2, 3, 5 of CPC and another application under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC before the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, has allowed both the applications and has remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision after framing four additional issues. Against this common judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

7. The learned Appellate Court, while remanding the matter to trial Court, has framed following four additional issues :

(i) Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 and Santosh were minor on the date of execution of sale-deed dated 27.6.2003 ?

(ii) Whether the sale-deed dated 27.6.2003 has been executed by defendant No.3 on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 and Santosh during their minority ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs obtained the possession of suit land after the execution of sale-deed dated 27.6.2003 ?

(iv) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs without the reli