JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal has been preferred as against the order of remand dated 26.10.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nimbahera District Chittorgarh in Appeal No. 18/1997. 2. Facts in short are that plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was averred that they have equal share in the disputed bada and they are in possession since 12.5.1976 when gift deed was executed in their favour by Kishore and Hari Ram. It was further averred that there was room in the bada, which was ruined and therefore, they started construction and upon this, defendants made obstruction. Hence, plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants stating herein that Hari Ram and Kishore were not entitled to execute gift deed for whole land because the land in question was ancestral and Dola was owner of the land and he had 5 sons Hari Ram, Kishore, Bhera, Dalu and Bhagwana. It was further submitted that the gift deed was illegal as it was not executed in terms of Section 122 of the Transfer of Properties Act. The defendants have also claimed their possession over the disputed bada. 4. The trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed as many as five issues. Issue No. 1 relates to whether disputed property belongs to the plaintiffs? Issue No. 2 was to the effect whether disputed property was earlier owned by Kishore and Hariram and whether they had gifted the same to the plaintiffs vide gift deed dated 12.5.1976 and since then they are in possession as owner? Issue No. 3 pertains to whether plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunction? Issue No. 4 relates to whether gift deed was illegal and therefore, no title over the disputed property was conferred on the plaintiffs? Issue No. 5 pertains to relief. 5. The trial Court clubbed the issues and decided the same together and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, appeal was preferred. The appellate Court found that it was not proper for the trial Court to club and decide the issues together. Thus, appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to consider each and every issue separately and after assessing the evidence, to decide issues separately. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the misc. appeal has been preferred. 6. The appellate Court found that it was not proper for the trial Court to club and decide the issues together. Thus, appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to consider each and every issue separately and after assessing the evidence, to decide issues separately. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the misc. appeal has been preferred. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellate Court ought to have decided the appeal itself while separately deciding the issues. It was unnecessary to remand the case to the trial Court, as such, impugned order be set aside and the appellate Court be directed to decide the appeal on merits. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Ashwin Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel and Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 161 ; Nanchi & Ors. v. Lala & Ors., 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.) 311 and Prahlad Rai Dhand v. Smt. Savitri Devi, 2003 (3) WLC (Raj.) 575 . 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order of remand. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order of the appellate Court and judgment of trial Court and the materials placed on record, it is apparent that the trial Court has not decided the issues separately. it was incumbent upon the trial Court to consider the issues separately and after assessing the evidence, to record findings on each and every issue separately, which has not been done. Thus, the appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment rendered by the trial Court and rightly remanded the case. Though remand should not be made merely because trial Court was wrong in its approach, but in the instant case, the trial Court was required to consider the issues separately and after sifting the evidence on each and every issue, to record findings issue wise, which has not been done which is necessary for just decision of case. 9. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the issues, which were framed, it was not proper for the trial Court to club the issues and decide them together. Hence, order of remand cannot be faulted and no interference is called for with the same in the instant appeal. 9. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the issues, which were framed, it was not proper for the trial Court to club the issues and decide them together. Hence, order of remand cannot be faulted and no interference is called for with the same in the instant appeal. The decisions relied upon would not come to help the appellants.Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******