JUDGMENT 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. This appeal under Order 43 rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2003, reversing the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.47-A/1994. 3. Suit at the instance of the appellants was for declaration, partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit lands and permanent injunction on the plea that the suit land was ancestral land. That, Gajadharram and Jageshwarram held half share. That, upon death of Jageshwarram, plaintiffs became entitled to 2/3rd share and the defendants No.1 to 3 jointly to 1/3rd share. 4. Defendants contested the claim stating in written statement that the plaintiffs are not member of their family. That, Gajadhar had only one son Satanand and one daughter Gangi. That, Raghunandan had bequeathed his entire property in favour of Gajadhar who became its exclusive owner upon the death of Raghunandan in the year 1946. That, Satanand was minor when Gajadhar died in 1950 and, thereafter, lived with joint estate with Jageshwarram who bequeathed his entire property to the defendants. That, upon death of Jageshwarram, the defendants mutated upon half share. It was also contended that Gajadhar had kept Tijiya besides his wife and the plaintiffs being illegitimate son had no title. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit property holding the plaintiffs to be the sons of Gajadharram and the suit lands are ancestral lands to the plaintiffs and the defendants. That, the plaintiffs were in possession of 2/3rd of the suit land. 6. The appellate Court reversed the judgment observing that core question for determination being whether the plaintiffs are sons of legally wedded wife of Gajadharram and if not, whether they have any title there over, and further observing that the trial Court though recording finding had not framed the issue, remitted the matter vide impugned judgment and decree. 7. As regard to the issue posed by the appellate Court, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant has led this (Ramniranjan Ran and another v. Jawaharlal and others) Court though findings recorded in paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment and decree which is based on the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties as regard to status of the plaintiffs. The trial Court recorded: **8- bl laca/k esa oknhx.k dk vfHkopu gS fd oknh jkefujatu ,oa jkt:i rFkk izfroknh ØŒ 1 rFkk 3 ds firk lnkuan ds firk xtk/kj jke dh oknxzLr Hkwfe;k¡ iS=`d gSa] vFkkZr~ oknxzLr Hkwfe;k¡ xtk/kj jke ,oa tkxs'oj dh iS=`d Hkwfe;k¡ gSA lkFk gh tkxs'oj jke ds ykoYn QkSr gks tkus ds dkj.k lHkh Hkwfe;ksa ds HkwfeLokeh oknh jkefujatu] jkt:i ,oa izfroknh ØŒ 1 rFkk 3 ds firk lnkuan gq,A tcfd izfroknh ØŒ 1 rFkk 3 dk vfHkopu gS fd oknh jkefujatu ,oa jkt:i xtk/kj jke ds iq= ugha gSA bl dkj.k oknxzLr Hkwfe;k¡ oknhx.k dh iS=`d Hkwfe;k¡ ugha gSA bl lacaèk esa jkefujatu ¼okŒlkŒ 1½ us vius dFku esa crk;k gS fd mlds ckck jkefi;kjs Fks] muds nks yM+ds Fks] tkxs'oj jke vkSj xtk/kj jke FksA tkxs'oj jke dh dksbZ okfjl ugha Fkh] xtk/kj jke ds rhu yM+ds Fks] ftudk uke lrkuan] jkefujatu] o jkt:i gSA ftuesa lrkuan QkSr gks pqds gSa ,oa lrkuan ds yM+ds tokgj] NdkSMh vkSj txnh'k izlkn gSA rFkk 'ks"k nks yM+ds o rFkk jkt:i vHkh ekStwn gSA bl lk{kh ds izfr ijh{k.k esa ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha vk;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij blds dFku ij vfo'okl fd;k tk,A blh rF; dh iqf"V jkekorkj ¼okŒlkŒ 2½ ,oa ckfYehfd izlkn ikaMs; ¼okŒlkŒ 3½ ds dFku ls Hkh gksrh gSA 9- tokgj yky ¼izŒlkŒ 1½ us vius dFku esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd xtk/kj jke dh ,d yM+dk vkSj ,d yM+dh gSA yM+ds dk uke lrkuan vkSj yM+dh dk uke xaxh gSA xaxh QkSr gks pqdh gSA lrkuan ds rhu yM+ds gSaA xtk/kj jke dh ,d 'kknh lFkjh esa gqbZ Fkh] blds vykok vkSj mudh dksbZ 'kknh ugha gqbZ FkhA bl lk{kh us vius izfr&ijh{k.k eas bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd jkefujatu dh ek¡ vkSj mldh nk;h lxh cgusa gSa rFkk jkefujatu dh ek¡ cM+h cgu gS rFkk mldh nk;h mlls NksVh gSA bl lk{kh us vius izfr&ijh{k.k esa vkxs ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd xkao ds cqtqxZ yksx ,slk crkrs Fks fd jkefujatu dh ek¡ frft;k dh 'kknh xtk/kj ls u gksdj nksLrh vkSjr ds :i esa xtk/kj jke j[ks FksA bl lk{kh us vkxs ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd cxhps dk iV~Vk tks jkefujtau o jkt:i ds uke gqvk gS] ml [kljs esa jkt:i vkSj jkefujatu ds firk dk uke xtk/kj fy[kk gSA ;g lkjs rF; bl ckr dk fu"d"kZ fudkyus ds fy, i;kZIr gSa jkt:i vkSj jkefujatu xtk/kj jke ds iq= gSaA txnh'k ¼izŒlkŒ 2½] jkefujatu ¼izŒlkŒ 3½] HkS;kyky ¼izŒlkŒ 4½ ds }kjk Hkh izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ;g dFku djkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS fd oknh jkefujatu ,oa jkt:i xtk/kj ds iq= ugha gSA fdUrq ;g mYy[ksuh; gS fd bu lkf{k;ksa dk dFku oknhx.k dh vksj ls vk;h gqbZ lk{; dh rqyuk esa fo'oluh; ugha gSA D;ksafd ;fn ,slk gksrk fd jkefujatu ,oa jkt:i xtk/kj jke ds iq= ugha gS rks blds fy, loksZRre lk{; ;g gksrk fd izfroknhx.k bl rF; dks [kMau djus ds fy, ;g izekf.kr dj nsrs fd jkefujtau ,oa jkt:i ds firk dksbZ vU; FksA blds vfrfjDr [kljksa ,oa izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr 'kiFki= izŒMhŒ 11 ,oa izŒMhŒ 12 ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gS fd oknh jkefujatu ,oa jkt:i dks xtk/kj jke ds iq= ds gh :i esa tkus tkrs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknhx.k dk ;g dguk fd jkefujtau vkSj jkt:i xtk/kj jke ds iq= ugha gS] Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA** 8. This fact is not disputed by the appellate Court which observed in paragraph 15 that: **15- fuf'pr gh izdj.k ds mfpr ,oa fof/kor fujkdj.k gsrq mDr iz'u gh lokZfèkd egRoiw.kZ iz'u gS vkSj blh ij iwjs ekeys dk fu.kZ; fVdk gqvk gS vkSj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Hkh blh fcanq ij fu"d"kZ nsrs gq, laf{kIr esa fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS blfy;s esjs er esa bl fcanq ij okniz'u fufeZr dj mHk;i{k dks lk{; dk vkSj rdZ dk iw.kZ volj fn, fcuk ikfjr vyksP; fu.kZ; ,oa t;i= fuf'pr gh fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; ughaA ;gh dkj.k gS fd lk{; esa nks&nks efgykvksa ds laca/k esa xtk/kj jke dh iRuh gksus laca/kh vLi"V dFku vk, gSa ftlesa ;g Li"V ugha gS fd dkSulh efgyk okLrfod iRuh Fkh vkSj dkSu lh efgyk iRuh ugha Fkh\ ;k ;fn nksuksa ls fookg gqvk rks ,d dh thfor voLFkk esa nwljh ls fookg gqvk ;k ,d ds ejus ds ckn nwljh ls fookg gqvk\ vkSj dkSulh efgyk izFke iRuh Fkh vkSj dkSulh f}rh;\ ;k dkSu lh efgyk iRuh Fkh gh ugha\ lkFk gh ;fn dksbZ efgyk j[kSy Hkh Fkh] rc Hkh D;k LoŒ xtk/kjjke ds lalxZ ls oknhx.k iq= ds :i esa mRiUu gq,A ;fn ugha rks izHkko D;k gksxk\ vkSj ;fn gk¡ rks izHkko D;k gksxk\** 9. But, because the issues were not framed, the first appellate Court reversed the entire judgment and remanded the case. 10. It has been held in Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884 , that: “6. … No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mis-trial which vitiates proceedings. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion.” 11. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion.” 11. In the case at hand, the parties being alive to entire issue and having led evidence and the trial Court even though did not frame the issue, yet returned the finding as regard to paternity of the plaintiffs, the appellate Court was not justified in remitting the matter for re-trial by framing issue and leading further evidence. 12. In view whereof, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The appeal is revived and remitted to the first appellate Court to decide it on merit. As the appeal is of 2003, the appellate Court is requested to decide it expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 13. The miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their costs respectively.