JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal under Order 43 rule 1(u) of CPC challenge is made to the order of remand dated 18.2.2010 passed by first appellate Court, in First Appeal No.21-A/2009. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. Plaintiff filed the suit on 22.2.2001 against his father Late Janki Prasad and brothers claiming ¼ share in the suit property (agricultural land) claiming to be an ancestral property. Defendants including Late Janki Prasad filed written statement on 30.7.2001 denying that the property is an ancestral property, instead it was pleaded that the suit property was self-acquired property of Late Janki Prasad. On 4.2.2002, defendant Janki Prasad died and his name was deleted. On 2.8.2006 suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that plaintiff had failed to prove that suit property was either ancestral property or self acquired property of his father late Janki Prasad. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff/respondent preferred Civil Appeal No.96A/2006 and during pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC was submitted to bring on record certain documents, as well as, the grievance that the plaintiff was denied the opportunity of leading evidence. The first appellate Court after hearing both the parties had ordered for remanding the case to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh allowing plaintiff/respondent to lead evidence and to take into consideration the documents filed under Order 41 rule 27 CPC vide order dated 29.1.2009. After remand, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.7.2009 again dismissed the suit and found that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to prove that the suit property was ancestral property. 3. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred vide Civil Appeal No.21-A/2009 by plaintiff/respondent and during pendency of appeal, an application under Order VI rule 17 CPC was filed by him to the effect that as the trial Court return the finding that suit property is an ancestral property of Late Janki Prasad; however, did nto return findings as regards respective shares of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2, since Janki Prasad has died intestated. 4. 4. First appellate Court considering the aforesaid amendment, allowed the same with the reasoning that even if the suit property is held to be that of Janki Prasad, falling to his share in the partition of ancestral property, plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 have rights to claim share therein. Since the trial Court has not returned the findings as regards determination of the shares of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2, by such proposed amendment nature of the suit shall not change as relief of claim of share amongst the parties remain the same with regard to apportionment thereof treating it to be a self acquired property of Late Janki Prasad and if the matter is left without determination of the aforesaid question, the dispute and rights shall remain undetermined despite findings of trial Court as regards status of the suit property. The appellate Court therefore, in the fitness of things and to do complete justice between the parties has remanded the case to the trial Court to allow the amendment and directed the trial Court to decide the lis between the parties as regards share of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 on the basis of findings of the trial Court that suit property is a self acquired property of Janki Prasad. 5. Challenge is made to the aforesaid remand order by the defendant/appellant on the premise that other heirs like daughter of the Janki Prasad are since not party to the suit, therefore, in absence thereof, determination of the share of all the heirs of Janki Prasad cannot be determined. There is no explanation as to why such an amendment application was not filed by the plaintiff at the earlier point of time. By amendment, in fact the nature of property is now sought to be treated as self acquired property of the Janki Prasad as against the claim of the same being an ancestral property, hence, nature of suit shall change. 6. By amendment, in fact the nature of property is now sought to be treated as self acquired property of the Janki Prasad as against the claim of the same being an ancestral property, hence, nature of suit shall change. 6. Per contra, plaintiff/respondent submitted that by remand, first appellate Court in fact and in effect has done complete justice between the parties inasmuch as even if the suit property as held by trial Court is a self acquired property of Late Janki Prasad, the apportionment of shares amongst the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are required to be determined as suit essentially was for the apportionment of the share of parties, therefore, it is incorrect to say that nature of the suit has changed. That apart in terms of Article 119 of Limitation Act, relief of declaration in the context of joint family property cannot be said to be time barred. 7. Such amendments, so allowed by first appellate Court, in no way has caused prejudice to the appellant/defendant. With the aforesaid submission, it is prayed that appeal be dismissed. 8. Having perused the order impugned, in the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction under Order XLI rule 23A of CPC in right perspective with intention to do complete justice between the parties as regards apportionment of share between plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 of the suit property which is held to be self acquired property of Janki Prasad by the trial Court. There being no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned, no interference is warranted in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. However, before parting with the case, it is considered apposite to observe that parties are at liberty to file appropriate application before the trial Court to bring on record other heirs of Janki Prasad for the purposes of determination of share of all heirs in the suit property left by Late Janki Prasad, thereafter, the trial Court after due notice to the parties, shall decide the lis in accordance with law.