JUDGMENT

The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.428 of 2008 have filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha in A.S.No.64 of 2012, setting aside judgment of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.428 of 2008 and remanding the case for fresh consideration.

2. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3, along with respondents 6 and 7, who were later deleted from the party array, for the declaration of title, fixation of boundary and for mandatary and prohibitory injunction. The plaint schedule property is stated to be an extent of 4 cents, remaining out of 1 Acre and 4 cents of property in Sy.No.599/2/3. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence on record, held that the property has not been identified and dismissed the suit. The 1^st Appellate Court, on the other hand, has held that the Commissioner has identified the properties as can be seen from Ext.C1(a) sketch and on that finding, the matter has been remanded back for fresh consideration. It is aggrieved by the remand order that this appeal is preferred. It is contended that there is no basis for finding that the property has been identified by the Commissioner.

The counsel for the appel