J U D G M E N T

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

Heard Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs.Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. These Civil Appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 1 11.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in E.F.A Nos.6 and 7 of 1998, whereby, the High Court allowed the said appeals and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

3. Succinctly stated facts are that the appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff / decree holder viz., Padmakshy (deceased), who had filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 1956 before the Sub Court, Parur, for partition and separate Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by I Dn ad tu e :M 2a 0r 2wp4a .1h 0o.14ssession of her share in the plaint schedule 13 items of immovable properties.

Reason:

1 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”\ The Sub Court, Parur, passed a preliminary decree on 23.10.1958. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the file of the Additional District Court, Parur and re-numbered as O.S.No.82 of 1960, in which, a final decree was passed on 09.03.1970.

4. The dispute revolved around is qua ite