GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28-08-1990 in A. S. No. 52 of 1984 on the file of learned IV Additional district Judge, Guntur, setting aside the judgment and decree of learned V Additional munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in O. S. No. 332 of 1978 dated 27-02-1984 and remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal of the suit after giving opportunity to both the parties. ( 2 ) THE original appellant-plaintiff since died, his legal representatives i. e. , appellants 2 and 3 were brought on record by order dated 27-11-2001 in C. M. P. No. 21179 of 1999 passed by this Court. ( 3 ) THE original plaintiff is the appellant. He instituted a suit in O. S. No. 332 of 1978 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, guntur for declaration of title and recovery of the possession of suit schedule property and in the alternative, for a decree against defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of rs. 2. 214/ -. ( 4 ) THE suit was filed for recovery of possession on the basis of registered sale deed dated 06-07-1971 for Rs. 1,500. 00 and the plaintiff was put in possession on the same day. The plaintiff stated that j. Thirupathaiah filed O. S. No. 777 of 1971 in the Court of District Munsif, Guntur, on behalf of defendants 4 to 6 against the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction on the ground that the first defendant sold away the suit schedule property to the defendants 4 to 6 vide hand letter dated 02-05-1967 for an amount of Rs. 1. 045. 00 and the same was decreed, but the High Court of Andhra pradesh set aside the finding with regard to the title of the suit schedule property. ( 5 ) THE defendants-respondents denied the plaint averments and inter alia, stated that the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the decisions in the said O. S. No. 777 of 1971 and A. S. No. 155 of 1973 on the file of court of the District Judge, Guntur, and also s. A. No. 402 of 1976 on the file of this Court. Further, the said Tirupathaiah continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property and that on account of differences, the first defendant brought into existence the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) THE trial court framed the issue as to whether the plaintiffs is entitled to declaration and possession of the suit property and whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of rs. 2,214/-alternatively. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-47 and the defendants examined D. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-34. The trial court considering the evidence on record held that ex. A-4 sale deed dated 06-07-1971 is valid and the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land from defendants 4 to 6 against which the said defendants filed A. S. No. 52 of 1984. The lower appellate court set aside the said decree and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. ( 8 ) THE lower appellate court on appreciation of the evidence found that the trial Court failed to discuss each document in detail as also the oral evidence and therefore, remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in order to meet the ends of justice. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Order XLI Rule 23 and rule 23-A of Code of Civil Procedure and submits that the lower appellate court has not followed the requirements of Order XLI rules 23 and 23-A C. P. C. while remanding the matter to the trial court. Order XLI rules 23 and 23-A read as under:"23. 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, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, by order remand the case, and may further direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so remanded, and shall send a copy of its judgment and order to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, with directions to readmit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suit, and proceed to determine the suit; and the evidence (if any) recorded during the original trial shall, subject to all just exceptions, be evidence during the trial after remand. 23-A. Where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary, the Appellate court shall have the same powers as it has under Rule 23. " ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submits that the lower appellate court is obligated to adjudicate the appeal on merits as the trial court has decided the suit on merits and not decided any preliminary point against which the appeal is preferred. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents fairly concedes that the remand order suffers from legal and procedural infirmity and an obligation is cast on the lower appellate court to decide the appeal on merits. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, a reading of the impugned judgment makes it clear that the lower appellate court, without considering the ingredients of Order XLI Rules 23 and 23-A of Code of Civil Procedure, remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in order to meet the ends of justice. There is no discussion whatsoever of the evidence on record. Admittedly, the trial court disposed of the suit on merits and not upon the preliminary point and as such, the lower appellate court has to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact, the trial court after appreciation of evidence on record held that ex. A-4 dated 06-07-1971 is valid and the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession from defendants 4 to 6 and accordingly dismissed the suit against defendants 1 to 3. In these circumstances, the lower appellate court has to decide the appeal on merits. ( 13 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, for disposal of A. S. No. 52 of 1984 on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.