Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the LRs.
of 5th defendant preferred the above appeal in this Court.
On appeal by the plaintiffs, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration.
The companytesting defendants produced about 41 documents showing the derivation of title and possession of the property with them.
The respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title of the plaint schedule property from the possession of defendants 4 to 6 and for partition of the same among the tavazhi members and also for prohibitory injunction and damages.
Witnesses were examined on both sides.
The LRs.
Leave granted.
Heard Mr. P. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.K.S. Menon, learned companynsel for the respondents.
This appeal is directed against the final order judgment dated 12.7.2002 in A.S. No.624 of 1994 passed by the High Court of Kerala, whereby the High Court, after setting aside the decree and judgment of the companyrts below, remanded the matter back to the trial companyrt for reconsideration.
We have perused the order passed by the High Court.
arising out of SLP C No.13712/2003 Dr. AR .
of 5th defendant are the appellants before us.
The defendants including defendant number5 resisted the suit companytending that the title and possession of the property is with them and if at all the title of the property is found to be with the plaintiffs, the same is lost by adverse possession and limitation.
While remitting the matter, the High Court has number indicated as to what question of facts and law are required to be assessed and the circumstances upon which the High Court found itself unable to decide the matter.
Lakshmanan, J. Delay companydoned.
