Judgment : The appellants instituted O.S.No.183 of 1981 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Nagercoil against the respondent State Government for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit items. The appellants based their claim to the properties on Ex. A-1 the sale deed dated 13. 1952 executed by one C.H.Simpson. Ex.A-25 is the photostat copy of the plaint appended to the sale deed. The sale deed covers an extent of 550 acres including the southern portion of old Survey No.2902 and a major part of old Survey No.2905 described as item 1 in the plaint schedule. Old Survey Nos.2904 and 2907 described as item 2 in the plaint schedule are not expressly included in the sale deed. The case of the appellants regarding item 2 is that though these two survey numbers do not find a place in Ex.A-1, they come within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. The Government resisted the action contending that item 2 is a poramboke land. The trial court after an elaborate discussion on the evidence on record found that old Survey Nos.2904 and 2907 correlate new R.S.No.774 and it lies in lekkom 28. And possession of this item 2 remains with vendor under Ex.A-1. Besides, from the boundary description and plan the trial court found that the vendor under Ex.A-1 had conveyed old Survey Nos.2904 and 2907 as part of old Survey No.2908. These two Survey Nos.2904 and 2907 form a small packet of land surrounded by patta land comprised in lekkom 28. And accordingly it decreed the suit as prayed for without costs. The defendant took up the matter in appeal before the Sub Judge, Nagercoil in A.S.No.36 of 1982 on his file. The lower appellate court while confirming the finding of the trial court on item 1, had remanded the matter to the trial court to find out whether item 2 is a patta land belonging to the present appellants or poramboke field. And this civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the said order of remand. 2 It is significant to note that the lower appellate court has not rendered any finding as to the nature and character of the lands described in item 2. It simply states that the Commissioner appointed in the case has failed to find out whether item 2 is a patta land or a poramboke land. 2 It is significant to note that the lower appellate court has not rendered any finding as to the nature and character of the lands described in item 2. It simply states that the Commissioner appointed in the case has failed to find out whether item 2 is a patta land or a poramboke land. The Commissioner’s report does not indicate whether item 2 is covered by Ex.A-1 sale deed or not. The Government have filed certain documents to prove that the disputed property is poramboke land. Curiously enough without going through the documents and discussing them, learned Subordinate Judge has remarked that we cannot give a verdict as to the character of the lands from these documents. And without discussing the Commissioner’s report the lower appellate court goes on to say that the trial court went wrong in holding item 2 is patta land on the basis of the report of the Commissioner. So, he was remitting the case to the trial court to render a finding as to whether item 2 is a patta land or a poramboke land. Needless to say that the approach of the court below is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of O.41 Rules 23 to 29, C.P.C. 3. The scope and object of O.41, Rule 23 were considered by a single Judge of this Court in Annamalai v. Narayanaswami Pillai, (1971) 2 M.L.J. 330 , wherein it has been observed that “0.41, Rule 23, as amended in Madras states: ”Where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, or where the appellate court in reversing or setting aside the decree, under appeal considers it necessary in the interests of justice to remand the case, the appellate court may by order remand the case.......“0.41, Rule 24, says that, where the evidence on record is sufficient to enable the appellate court to pronounce judgment, the appellate court may, after resettling the issue, finally determine the suit- O.41, Rule 25 says that, if the trial court omitted to frame or try any issue, the appellate court may refer the same to the trial court for taking additional evidence. But the appeal will have to be finally disposed of by the appellate court. 0.41, Rule 27, deals with reception of evidence. But the appeal will have to be finally disposed of by the appellate court. 0.41, Rule 27, deals with reception of evidence. It has been pointed in a number of decisions by this Court, for example, Subramanian v. Kaliammal, (1986)2 M.L.J. 548 and Sowdammal (alias) Sundarammal v. Veer-ammal (1970)1 M.L.J. 205 , (Where the prior decisions are referred to) that, where the learned District Munsif has considered the evidence adduced before him and come to some conclusion, the appellate court should not normally remand the case. It should see first whether it cannot dispose of the case itself under O.41, Rules 24, 25, 26 and 27. Only if it is not possible so to do and it is necessary in the interests of justice to remit the suit, remand should be resorted to.” 4. In Kari Gounder v. Sagarmull, 81 L.W. 46 (S.N.), in an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of money involved in a dishonoured cheque, the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court and directed additional evidence to be taken, and remanded the case to the trial court. Held: “It is settled law that the mere reception of additional evidence at the appellate stage will not by itself justify an order-of remand. Under O.41,” Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the judgment of the. trial court could be set aside, it is necessary to show that it had to be set aside, and this cannot be stated when on the materials available before it, the trial court wrote a proper judgment. It is immaterial if the judgment was wrong. If the judgment was wrong it was the duty of the appellate court to correct it“. 5. In P.Rama Rao v. P. Vimalakumari, A.I.R. 1969 A.P. 216, it has been held that where the trial court, after considering the entire evidence on record, had given specific finding on each issue framed by it and the lower appellate court, without considering the evidence or arriving at a conclusion that the material findings of the trial court were erroneous, set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and remanded the suit for disposal according to Saw affording an opportunity to one of the party to examine certain witnesses, the order of remand was illegal.” 6. Even in case the lower appellate court has found the re-issuance of Commissioner’s warrant necessary to decide the controversy in the suit what it should do is not to remand the entire suit under O.41, Rule 23, but issue a Commission under O.26, Rule 9, C.P.C. The appellate court itself has the power to issue a commission for local inspection in the same manner in which a trial court can act under O.26, Rule 9. No doubt, the powers of remand under Rule 23 of O.41, C.P.C. are wide enough to take in not only the cases where the trial court had decided the cases on the preliminary point but also the case where the trial court had decided all the issues after considering the entire evidence on record and when the appellate court in the interest of justice feels that remand was just and proper. But the conditions prescribed for the exercise of the power of remand under O.41, Rule 23, C.P.C. are mandatory and not a mere formality. To arrive at a finding on the material on record that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous and is liable to be reversed or set aside is a condition precedent for the appellate court to pass an order of remand under O.41, Rule 23, C.P.C. As it has been pointed out in Submmanian v. Kaliam- mal, (1986) 2 M.L.J. 548, so long as that finding has not been arrived at, there is no scope for the appellate court reversing or setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and as a consequence thereof remanding the suit for fresh disposal. It is settled law that where a suit has been disposed of by a trial court on all issues, the appellate court cannot make an order of remand for fresh disposal of the suit unless it reverses the decree of the trial court. In other words, the appellate court should come to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the trial court cannot be sustained before it can think of remanding the suit for fresh disposal. The question whether it is in the interests of justice to remand the case would arise only after the appellate court comes to the conclu-sion that the judgment and decree of the trial court are not sustainable and the appellate court reverses the same. The question whether it is in the interests of justice to remand the case would arise only after the appellate court comes to the conclu-sion that the judgment and decree of the trial court are not sustainable and the appellate court reverses the same. While so, it is evident that the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court in this case is unsustainable. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and ‘he lower appellate court is directed to consider the entire evidence afresh and render a finding in respect of suit item No.2. Since the finding of the trial court regarding suit item 1 is already confirmed by the lower appellate court, it need not render any verdict on suit item No.1 once again. No costs in this appeal.