ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of the CPC being aggrieved with the remand order passed by the Principle District Judge, Dindori in RCA No.367/2019 vide order dated 31.10.2023 by which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in First Civil Judge, Class-II, Dindori in Civil Suit No.31-A/2017 was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh trial.

2. In a nutshell the plaintiff Sundar Singh and Gulwati filed a Civil Suit pleading that the Survey No.465 admeasuring area 4.24 hectare and Survey No.317 admeasuring are 0.21 hectare land were the ancestral property. On the basis of that the disputed property belongs to Basor and Basor was having two sons Dhola and Mangal and Dhola in his life time partitioned the ancestral property and in that partition Hanuman, Takkan Bai and Kunwariya Bai has given their respective share and their name was recorded separately in the Revenue papers. It was also pleaded that the deceased Dhola kept Maha Singh in his home as Lumsanai of Kunwariya Bai. Maha Singh and Kunwariya Bai has maintained and taken care of Dhola. Kunwariya Bai expired in the year 1997 and in 2002 the plaintiff Sundar Singh left his Village Khairda in relation to his job. The defendant has assured him that they will look after his agricultural land and also give the share of agricultural product and in absence of plaintiff No.2 by playing fraud the defendants got mutated their name in place of Kunwariya Bai and this fact came to plaintiff No.2 knowledge when he applied for Kishan Credit Card on 28.02.2011. and on that basis the plaintiff filed the suit that the plaintiff No.1 is the widow of Kunwariya Bai's son Amar Singh and Sundar Singh is the grand son of Kunwariya Bai.

3 . Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the separate replies but in written statement they have stated that as per Revenue Record year 1929-30 Dhola Singh was the possession holder of the disputed properties and 1954-55 when the new Land Revenue Court came into existence, the land was recorded in the name of Hanuman Prasad son of Dhola. He further stated that 1959-60 Hanuman Prasad expired and disputed land were recorded in the name of his minor daughters Ramwati and Phaggan Bai. Kunwariya Bai's husband Maha Singh became their guardian and near about 1970 conspiring with the revenue authorities the disputed land was recorded in the name of deceased Kunwariya Bai but she was never in the possession of the disputed property. Later on this fact came to their knowledge in 1997 Kunwariya Bai executed a Will in favour of Ramwati and Phaggan Bai and after the death of Kunwariya Bai in the year 1999, the disputed land was recorded in the name of Ramwati and Phaggan Bai and they are in the possession of the disputed land.

4. On the above facts the trail Court have recorded the evidence of the parties and held that the disputed land is not the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. It was also held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the name of respondent was wrongly recorded and trail Court also held that no Will was executed by the deceased Kunwariya Bai in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and after that the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved with that the plaintiffs filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court.

5 . Before the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC alleging that on 07.11.2019 during the pendency of the suit the defendants have transferred the some part of the disputed land Survey No.465/2 and 469/2 in favour of Ramawati, so Ramawati be impleaded as respondent and be permitted to carryout the necessary amendment in the cause title.

6. The plaintiff/appellant has also filed an application under 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and in that also the sale deed executed by Ramwati in favour of Ramadevi was placed to be taken on record.

7. On that the First Appellate Court by impugned order remanded the case to the trial C