Satyanarayana Rao, J.-The point raised in this appeal is covered by an exhaustive and illuminating judgment of our learned brother, Viswanatha Sastri, J., reported in Kanakayya v. Lakshmayya1, in which he held that notwithstanding the fact that after an order of remand the suit was disposed of, the party aggrieved by the order of remand would have a right of appeal, differing from the judgment of Mack, J., in Venkatarama Ayyar v. Unnamalai Ammal2. The view of Mack, J., is that an appeal against an order of remand is incompetent if the suit is disposed of after remand. He dismissed C.M.A.No. 508 of 1946 and this Letters Patent Appeal is against that decision. We do not think it necessary to traverse the same ground which was covered by our learned brother Viswanatha Sastri, J., for holding that the view taken by Mack, J., in Venkatarama Aiyar v. Unnamalai Ammal2, is wrong. We cannot usefully add to the reasoning of the learned Judge, Viswanatha Sastri, J., and we entirely agree with his reasoning and his conclusion that the view taken by Mack, J., in Venkatarama Ayyar v. Unnamalai Ammal2 is wrong. We therefore think that the decision in Venkatarama Aiyar v. Unnamalai Ammal2 , does not lay down the law correctly and must be overruled. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent when asked whether he was in a . position to distinguish the case disposed of by Viswanatha Sastri, J., from the present case attempted to argue that the order of remand was necessitated, because the present appellant wanted an indulgence from the lower Court. This does not seem to be correct, as it is evident from the judgment of the learned District Judge that it was the 1st respondent, who was the appellant before him, that raised a new question of law which necessitated an investigation into facts, and the present appellant who was the 1st respondent there requested that if the point were to be allowed to be raised at the stage of the appeal he should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence, as the matter could not be disposed of without trial. It was from this point of view that the learned District Judge framed two issues and remitted the case to the learned District Munsiff with liberty to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. It was from this point of view that the learned District Judge framed two issues and remitted the case to the learned District Munsiff with liberty to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. The contention therefore that the appellant elected in favour of an order of remand and therefore is precluded by some principle of estoppel cannot be accepted, even if otherwise tenable. For these reasons, we think that the appeal must be allowed and the decision of the learned Judge must be reversed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal will be disposed of on merits. The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this appeal. V.P.S. ----- Appeal allowed.