1. Appeal Background:
The appellant, defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No. 110 of 2012, has appealed the First Appellate Court’s decision to remand the partition suit for fresh hearing after the trial court dismissed it due to non-inclusion of all joint family properties.

2. Suit Background and Plaintiff’s Claim:
Respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, filed for partition of agricultural lands Gut Nos. 61 and 62, seeking a 1/6th share and declaring a sale deed by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 6 as non-binding. Notably, the plaintiff waived claims on a property on Bhokardan Road, citing inability to pay court fees.

3. Defendants' Response and Contentions:
Defendant No. 2 contended the suit properties were his separate property under a 1999 partition deed. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 agreed with the plaintiff’s claim, stating that all suit properties were joint family properties. Defendant No. 6 argued he had conducted due inquiry before purchasing the property.

4. Trial Court Decision:
The trial court held the properties as ancestral and the sale deed void but dismissed the suit as all joint family properties were not included.

5. Appeal and First Appellate Court’s Decision:
The First Appellate Court remanded the case for a fresh decision on issue No. 3, allowing the plaintiff to include the Bhokardan Road plot for comprehensive adjudication.

6. Appellant’s Arguments Against Remand:
Appellant argued that the First Appellate Court exceeded its authority, violating Order XLI Rule 23 of the CPC, and insisted the trial court should have decided on the basis of available evidence.

7. Respondents' Arguments Supporting Remand:
Respondents supported the First Appellate Court’s remand, emphasizing the necessity of including all joint properties in a partition suit to ensure equitable division among coparceners.

9. Judicial Observations & Precedents Cited:
The appellant relied on precedents emphasizing that remand under Order XLI Rule 23 cannot be done routinely and should focus on merits. The court reviewed various judgments on including all family properties in partition suits.

11. Appellate Court’s Rationale for Remand:
The First Appellate Court justified remand to ensure all coparceners’ rights are protected, reasoning that even if one party waives a claim, all joint properties should be considered.

12. Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Appellate Court’s Decision:
Supreme Court precedent (R. Mahalakshmi v. A. Kanchana) supports remand orders for inclusion of all joint properties in partition suits, ensuring equitable division.

13. Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:
In light of the established legal principles, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Appellate Court's decision to remand for a complete partition determination.

14. Extension of Interim Relief:
Post-judgment, the interim relief was extended for four weeks to allow the appellant to approach a higher court.

Key Legal Provisions Discussed

• Order XLI Rule 23, CPC: Remand in cases where complete retrial is needed.
• Order II Rule 2, CPC: Restriction on claims omitted from initial suit.
• Order XLI Rule 23A, CPC: Remand based on merits, not as a routine action.

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of all joint family properties is essential in partition suits to ensure equitable division among all coparceners, and partial partition is not permissible. Remand was appropriate to prevent multiple litigations and protect coparcener rights.

Subjects:

Property Law, Family Law, Civil Procedure
Partition Suit, Remand Order, Ancestral Property, Joint Family Rights, Appellate Review