JUDGMENT B.H. Marlapalle, J. This appeal arises from the decree of permanent injunction passed on 23rd June, 1998 by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 96 of 1989. The appellant was a defendant in the civil suit. The respondents/plaintiffs had claimed that plaintiff No. 1 is a tenant in possession of Paddy field Known as "2nd Laneo (Plot) Portaxette No. 694" belonging to the Communidade of Margao and duly registered in the name of plaintiff No.1 as per order of learned Mamlatdar of Salcete Taluka passed on 29.4.1967 and registered in Book No. 46 of the Communidade of Margao on 16.6.1968 duly surveyed under No. 25/10 commonly known as "Mandop" in Aquem Village of Salcete Taluka. The plaintiff No. 1 also claimed that compensation of Rs. 8632.89/ - in respect of some portion of suit land acquired by the State Government was also received by him vide order dated 1.3.6.1988. It was alleged that the defendant being the owner or the neigh-bouring land on the southern side tried to interfere in the suit land with the help of his labourers by digging the land without having cultivation rights and therefore an order of permanent injunction was sought. The plaintiffs had also claimed that they were declared as deemed tenants in Tenancy Case No. 57 of 1977 in respect of the suit land surveyed under No. 25/10. It was also held that by judgment and decree dated 20.11.1980 in Regular Civil Suit No. 123 of 1978 filed by the plaintiff against one Pedro Philipe of Navelim, he had been permanently restrained from interfering in the suit land which was in possession of the plaintiff. 2. The case of defendant while opposing the suit was that he owned the suit land under Survey No. 25/10 and therefore he could not be restrained. He denied the ownership of the Communidade over the suit land as well as the status of the Plaintiff/Tenant on the said land. 3. It appears that Regular Civil Suit No. 175 of 1998 was filed by the defendant in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao being for deletion of names of the plaintiffs from the record of Survey No. 25/10. The said suit has only been decided vide judgment dated 30.12.2000 and has been partly allowed in respect of the property surveyed under No. 29/5. The said suit has only been decided vide judgment dated 30.12.2000 and has been partly allowed in respect of the property surveyed under No. 29/5. This award passed in Regular Suit No. 175 of 1988 is partless matter of challenge in an appeal presently pending before the District Court (Regular Civil Suit No. 20/01). 4. The Plaintiffs had relied upon nearly 3 documents : (1) The Certificate purportedly issued by the Communidade and which was marked as Exhibit PW l/M. The same Certificate was signed by the Registrar of Communidade. (2) The Affidavit filed in evidence in Regular Civil Suit No. 123 of 1978 by Pas colina Pereira. However, neither the Communidade was implemented as one of the defendants nor the Registrar of the said Communidade was summoned as Witness so as to place before trial Court the record in support of the plaintiffs contentions the plaintiff No. 1 was declared Tenant of the suit land and the ownership of the said land was that of the Communidade. when both the parties were claiming the title over the suit land, it was necessary to decide the ownership title as well as the tenancy as claimed by the plaintiff No. 1 and these have been verified from the record in possession of the Communidade of Margao. On the other hand, the defendant claimed ownership of the suit land and denied the title of the plaintiff No. 1 as a tenant. In the conclusive proof (Portaxette surveyed under No. 25/10), it appears that the defendant claims that the property under Survey No. 25/10 is Mandop and the plaintiffs claim that it is Portaxette of Communidade of Margao. This issue could have also been determined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed before it by the Registrar of the Communidade. 5. By referring to the Provisions of Rule 23-A under Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, Mr. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the case P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 686 . The powers of the Appellate Court for remand under Rule 23-A of Order XLI have been with in para 10 and 11 of the said decision. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the case P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 686 . The powers of the Appellate Court for remand under Rule 23-A of Order XLI have been with in para 10 and 11 of the said decision. The decree passed by the trial Court in the instant case without the evidence that was in the custody of the Communidade is without resolving the conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding ownership as well as identity of the suit property and therefore this is a fit case for remand in Order XLI, Rule 23-A. It was submitted by Mr. Kakodkar that the issue of impleading the Communidade as a necessary party would be hit by limitations. If that be so, the plaintiffs may make an application before the trial Court to issue witness summons so as to place on record the documentary evidence regarding their own title in the suit property by examining an officer of the Communidade. The trial Court will also examine the other issue whether Portaxette is the land in Survey No.25/10 or Mandap (Mandopa) is part of Survey No. 25/10. 6. In the result this appeal succeeds partly. The impugned judgment and decree is hereby quashed and set aside and Special Civil Suit No.96 of 1989 is remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication on the issues of ownership as well as identity of the suit property by leading additional evidence of the Communidade of Margao and other witnesses if in. On remand, the suit shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 6 months from the date of first appearance. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 1st November, 2004. Status quo as at present in respect of the suit property shall be maintained till the suit is decided on remand. In case the plaintiff applies for legal assistance, the same shall be considered by the trial Court. No costs. R&P along with the writ to go the trial Court.