JUDGMENT : R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J. 1. In terms of Order XLIII Rule 1(u) C.P.C. plaintiffs in the suit preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the correctness of judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District in A.S.No. 1 of 2015. Respondent in this appeal is the defendant in the suit. 2. Despite valid service of notice, none has entered appearance for respondent. 3. For appellants, learned counsel submitted arguments. 4. O.S.No. 199 of 2009 before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property, namely, Ac.2.42 cents situate in Patha Annasamudram Gram Panchayat, Tripuranthakam Mandal of Prakasam District. The appellants herein two in number filed the said suit as against the defendant. Plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the said property and alleged that defendant had no semblance of rights or claims over the said property, but he indulged in interfering with their peaceful possession and therefore, they were forced to file the suit. As against that, the defendant pleaded in his written statement that he is in possession of the property and not the plaintiffs and the claim made by the plaintiffs is based on forged documents and sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Pleadings on both sides indicate that the parties claimed their rights from different sources. A brief mention of them is needed here. Plaintiffs state that originally the property belonged to Smt. S.Saraswathamma and her son Sri S.Prasad. Under an agreement for sale dated 07.06.1992 they alienated this property and delivered possession of the same to Sri Y.Pedda Galaiah. Since then the purchaser under the agreement for sale held possession of the property. He obtained a ryotwari patta. Subsequently, a partition took place among family members. In that partition western portion to an extent of Ac.1.30 cents fell to the share of 1st plaintiff and eastern portion to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents fell to the share of 2nd plaintiff. Both plaintiffs are grandsons of the above referred Sri Y.Pedda Galaiah. These plaintiffs claim to have possession of their respective shares. Entries in revenue records were mutated in their favour. Pattadar and title deed passbooks were given to them and they have been in continuous possession of this property. 6. Both plaintiffs are grandsons of the above referred Sri Y.Pedda Galaiah. These plaintiffs claim to have possession of their respective shares. Entries in revenue records were mutated in their favour. Pattadar and title deed passbooks were given to them and they have been in continuous possession of this property. 6. The case set out by the defendant is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Sri S.Ramanjaneya Prasad. On 06.02.2008 under a registered sale deed he sold out the property to Sri V.Parameswara Rao and possession was obtained by the purchaser. Subsequently, Sri V.Parameswara Rao under a registered sale deed dated 21.02.2009 sold out the plaint schedule property to the defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,21,000/-. Defendant obtained possession of the property under that registered sale deed. He is the rightful owner and possessor of this property. The agreement for sale dated 07.06.1992 referred in the plaint is a forged document. The ryotwari patta claimed in the plaint does not contain the proceedings number of Special Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Markapur and signatures of the officers concerned are not available on it. The documents asserted in the plaint were fabricated. 7. On those rival pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of filing of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 8. During trial, for plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. For defendant, DWs.1 to 3 testified and Exs.B.1 to B.9 were marked. 9. After hearing arguments on both sides and after considering the material on record, learned trial Court agreed with the case of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and granted permanent injunction against the defendant. During the course of its judgment, learned trial Court recorded a clear finding that plaintiffs successfully established their right over the suit schedule property whereas defendant failed to prove the same (at para No. 12). Learned trial Court observed that one of the vendors under the agreement for sale is Sri S. Prasad and he testified as PW.3 on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant did not examine his vendors. Learned trial Court observed that one of the vendors under the agreement for sale is Sri S. Prasad and he testified as PW.3 on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant did not examine his vendors. It observed that plaintiffs and defendant failed to prove the title of their respective original owners so as to convey title to them. It further observed that revenue records filed by the plaintiffs pertain to a period anterior to institution of the suit. The revenue records filed by the defendant in Exs.B.3 to B.9 came into existence only during the pendency of the suit. It was on those findings it concluded all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in favour of them. 10. Aggrieved of that judgment, defendant preferred A.S.No. 1 of 2015 before learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and after perusing the material on record, learned first appellate Court passed the impugned judgment. It set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It remanded the suit to the trial Court. A perusal of this judgment indicates the following factors prompted the learned first appellate Court in remanding the suit to the trial Court: 1. Trial Court judgment did not offer any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of DWs.1 to 3 and discard Exs.B.1 to B.9. 2. Trial Court judgment failed to offer reasons for believing the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.11. 3. Ryotwari patta standing in the name of Sri Y.Pedda Galaiah is Ex.A.1 in the trial Court and as per the appendix of evidence, this ryotwari patta was issued on 06.07.1989. But in the plaint it was referred as 07.09.1992. The discrepancy in the dates remained unexplained. The genuineness of Ex.A.1 was a matter of importance and no specific finding was given by the trial Court on that. 4. The Revenue Authorities issued passbooks and title deed passbooks in favour of both sides. Learned trial Court did not consider them in the light of the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder. 5. 4. The Revenue Authorities issued passbooks and title deed passbooks in favour of both sides. Learned trial Court did not consider them in the light of the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder. 5. Trial Court judgment contains relevant material till first 11 paragraphs and when it comes to later part from paragraph No. 12 onwards it referred to certain facts and evidence which are totally unconnected with the suit and they were also unconnected with the evidence adduced by both sides. With those observations, it set aside the trial Court’s judgment and remanded the suit to the trial Court. 11. Plaintiffs in the suit did not relish the order of remand. In this civil miscellaneous appeal the plaintiffs contend that the first appellate Court was holding the appeal which was in continuation of the suit and it was empowered to decide the appeal with the material on record. It failed to do so. If the first appellate Court thought of framing additional issues, it could have framed them and could have decided the appeal. The order of remand is against the principles contained in the statute and the precedent. They seek to set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and remand the matter to the first appellate Court for consideration and disposal of the appeal in accordance with law. 12. Arguing on the relevant principles with reference to powers of appellate Court and the principles governing remanding of suits to trial Courts by first appellate Courts, learned counsel for appellants cited the following judgments: 1. Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad vs. Sunder Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 485 2. P. Purushottam Reddy vs. Pratap Steels Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 686 3. Ashwinkumar K. Patel vs. Upendra J. Patel, (1999) 3 SCC 161 4. Sundarajan @ Pichaikaran vs. Aanji, 2010 (6) CTC 612 13. The point that falls for consideration is: “Did the first appellate Court remanded the suit in violation of the principles of law causing injustice to the appellants?” 14. Point: The judgment of the learned trial Court in the suit for permanent injunction contains a definite finding holding that it believed that the plaint schedule property has been in possession of the plaintiffs and defendant failed to establish their possession over the property. Point: The judgment of the learned trial Court in the suit for permanent injunction contains a definite finding holding that it believed that the plaint schedule property has been in possession of the plaintiffs and defendant failed to establish their possession over the property. The judgment of the learned first appellate Court is clear that it did not discuss the evidence and did not set aside the said finding. While exercising powers under Order XLI Rule 23 or Order XLI Rule 23A C.P.C. it is incumbent on the first appellate Court to record its disagreement with the findings of the trial Court and then it shall set aside the findings. Judgment of the learned first appellate Court does not indicate any specific reason or direction for retrial by the trial Court. It has not recorded its satisfaction that retrial was necessary to render justice between the parties. In the absence of compliance with these principles, the order of the appellate Court in remanding the suit cannot be maintained is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation’s case (supra). In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate Court is in violation of law. 15. This Court has already recorded the observations of the learned first appellate Court prompting it to pass the order of remand. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate Court is in violation of law. 15. This Court has already recorded the observations of the learned first appellate Court prompting it to pass the order of remand. The law is that if from the pleadings of the parties the material issue arises, but such material issue was not framed in the trial Court then the appellate Court is not helpless and the appellate Court could very well frame the issues and adopt the course provided to it under Order XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. For benefit, Order XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. is extracted here: “Order XLI Rule 25 CPC: Where Appellate Court may frame issues and refer them for trial to Court whose decree appealed from - Where the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact, which appears to the Appellate Court essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits the Appellate Court may, if necessary, frame issues, and refer the same for trial to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, and in such case shall direct such Court to take the additional evidence required; and such Court shall proceed to try such issues, and shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor within such time as may be fixed by the Appellate Court or extended by it from time to time.” 16. All the observations made in the judgment of the first appellate Court find answer if the first appellate Court bestowed its attention to the above referred provision and the subsequent provisions enabling the first appellate Court to have effective adjudication of the dispute between parties. Since the learned first appellate Court failed to act in accordance with law, the impugned judgment cannot be maintained and therefore, it is set aside. Point is answered in favour of the appellants. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 in A.S.No. 1 of 2015 of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur. A.S.No. 1 of 2015 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur stands restored. Point is answered in favour of the appellants. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 in A.S.No. 1 of 2015 of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur. A.S.No. 1 of 2015 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur stands restored. Learned first appellate Court shall secure the presence of both sides and proceed with the appeal and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.