JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant No.4 against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 on the file of III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition in respect of suit schedule property was preliminarily decreed in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their status before the Trial Court. I. BRIEF FACTS 3. The sole plaintiff i.e., respondent No.1 herein filed the suit vide O.S. No.344 of 2008 against defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition of suit schedule “A” to “E” properties. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is that late Laxminarayana is her father and husband of defendant No.1 and grandfather of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Late Laxminarayana, who possessed the suit schedule properties, died intestate leaving behind the respondent No.1/plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Thus, the respondent No.1/plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in joint possession of the plaint schedule property after the demise of the said original owner, Late Laxminarayana. The respondent No.1/plaintiff being one of the coparceners claimed entitlement to 2/6 th share in the schedule of property and accordingly when she demanded the defendants for partition, the defendants sought to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties. According to the respondent No.1/plaintiff, the alienations allegedly made by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are neither valid nor binding upon her. 4. The defendant No.4 filed a written statement and contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 alone were the owners of the schedule property and that they had validly executed document bearing No. 3344 dated 09.03.2006 to an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas and document No.13194 dated 14.12.2005 in sy.No.180 admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas and document bearing No.2229 dated 16.02.2006 in Sy.No.179 and 227 admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is neither a coparcener nor a co-member of the joint family; that she had severed from joint family long back and hence, she does not have any subsisting right or interest in the suit property. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is neither a coparcener nor a co-member of the joint family; that she had severed from joint family long back and hence, she does not have any subsisting right or interest in the suit property. It is further stated that only after due verification of the documents, defendant No.4 had purchased the property being a bonafide purchaser for value and that the present suit was filed to harass defendant No.4 and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT 5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff and D-1 to D-3? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property into six shares and for allotment of 2/6 th share to her? 3) To what relief? III . EVIDENCE ON RECORD 6. During the course of trial, the respondent No.1/plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and another as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on her behalf. On the other hand, though defendant No.4 was examined as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3, failed to present himself for cross examination and thus, the chief examination affidavit of DW1 was eschewed from the record on 07.112.2011. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT 7. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and material on record, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff as prayed for. 8. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the defendant No.4 filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the record. V . ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION: 10. The point that arises for determination is: Whether there exists any ground to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 on the file of III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District? VI . SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 11. V . ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION: 10. The point that arises for determination is: Whether there exists any ground to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 on the file of III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District? VI . SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 11. a) Submissions on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.4: The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.4 contended that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had sufficiently received good benefit before and at the time of marriage by the defendant No.1 and that after long lapse of time, she instituted the suit for partition with an ulterior motive to defraud the defendant No.4. It was further urged that the sudden escalation of values of properties prompted the respondent No.1/plaintiff to institute the partition suit. Accordingly to the defendant, there exists a collusion and conspiracy between the respondent No.1/plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 for gaining unlawful amounts from him. It was further contended that the respondent Nos.2 and 3/ defendant Nos.2 and 3 who have registered the schedule property in favour of the defendant No.4 had produced the original title book and passbook granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal showing the full rights of the defendants alone, however, the respondent No.1/plaintiff did not take any steps with Mandal Revenue Officer to have her name mutated also as one of the title holders. 12. The appellant/defendant No.4 further stated that as revealed from the written statement filed by him, apart from the suit schedule property in the present suit, some other properties were also alienated by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the appellant/defendant No.4 under different registered sale deeds. However, there is no whisper about those properties in the impugned judgment. In a suit for partition, it was argued that all joint family properties brought into the hotchpotch and a suit seeking for a partial partition is typically not maintainable. Failing to include all properties in the partition suit is not maintainable. According to him, the trial Court erred in not framing a specific issue with regard to non inclusion of other joint family properties and the decree passed without considering the entirety of the family properties is unsustainable. 13. Failing to include all properties in the partition suit is not maintainable. According to him, the trial Court erred in not framing a specific issue with regard to non inclusion of other joint family properties and the decree passed without considering the entirety of the family properties is unsustainable. 13. As can be seen from the grounds of appeal, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed implead petition in O.S.No.30 of 2002 before the V Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the said suit was compromised between the parties. However, the respondent No.1/plaintiff had not taken any steps with regard to her share in the said suit i.e. O.S.No.30 of 2002. It is pertinent to note that these aspects were not part of the impugned judgment. b) DEFENDANT NO.5’S PROCEEDINGS 14. It is pertinent to note that defendant No.5 did not contest the suit before the trial Court. After passing of the impugned judgment, the defendant No.5 filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1048 of 2013 in O.S.No.344 of 2008 by invoking order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree dated 28.03.2012. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 24.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.5 filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court and the same was allowed on 17.01.2022 by this Court by setting aside the order dated 24.10.2014 passed by the trial Court and accordingly I.A.No.1048 of 2013 was allowed. Thus, in view of allowing I.A.No.1048 of 2013, the exparte decree dated 28.03.2012 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.344 of 2008 stood set aside. As a result, the defendant No.5 was given an opportunity to contest the suit before the trial Court. 15. During the course of arguments in the present Appeal, both the parties expressed consent for remanding back the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication of the suit by framing and deciding the relevant issues. VII. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 16. The legal frame work in this regard may be noticed as under: Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked when a case has been disposed of on a preliminary point and the appellate court reverses the decree, it may remand the case to the lower court for further adjudication. VII. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 16. The legal frame work in this regard may be noticed as under: Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked when a case has been disposed of on a preliminary point and the appellate court reverses the decree, it may remand the case to the lower court for further adjudication. Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure comes into operation when a case has been decided on merits and the appellate court believes further inquiry is needed, the case can be remanded. Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked when the trial court omitted to frame or decide a material issue, the appellate court may direct the lower court to try the issue and submit findings. 17. In the present case, having regard to the fact that defendant No.5 has not been permitted to contest the suit and since the question touching upon the inclusion of all joint family properties and the validity of alienations were not adequately addressed, this court finds it appropriate that the matter be remanded for fresh adjudication by the trial Court. 18. The trial court passed the preliminary decree only based on the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No.1/plaintiff as the only evidence adduced on behalf of defendant No.4 was eschewed for the reason that defendant No.4 did not present himself for cross examination. Thus, the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court is nothing but an exparte decree. 19. A perusal of entire material placed on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the trial Court failed to consider material aspects while passing preliminary decree. The trial Court also failed to frame relevant issues with regard to non joinder of other joint family properties. As stated supra, the defendant No.5 also got a right to contest the suit by virtue of orders passed in CRP No.2 of 2015 and thus, defendant No.5 is at liberty to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence in defence of his case. 20. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 filed list of cases filed by the family members of Bhoodevamma (defendant No.1). 20. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 filed list of cases filed by the family members of Bhoodevamma (defendant No.1). A perusal of the said list discloses that one Kistamma and others filed O.S.No.609 of 2001 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar seeking partition and the said suit was dismissed on 31.12.2018. O.S.No.30 of 2002 was filed by Vindya Developers against Bhoodevamma and others seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale and the said suit was compromised. One K. Bharat Kumar filed O.S.No.884 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar against K. Bhoodevamma and others for partition and the said suit was decreed. One Mrs. Punyavathi filed O.S.No.344 of 2008 on the file of III Additional District Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking partition against K. Bhoodevamma and others and the said suit was decreed but the same was challenged by M/s. Kedia Homes vide A.S.No.815 of 2013, wherein stay was granted by the appellate court. Mrs. Punyavathi filed O.S.No.460 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking partition and the said suit is pending. One Mrs. Bhavani filed O.S.No.88 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking declaration of sales deeds of M/s. Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar, M/s. Kedia Homes Private Limited and Development Agreement of M/s. AGR as null and void and not binding on her. Mr. Bharat Kumar filed O.S.No.288 of 2025 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar against Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar, M/s. Kedia Homes Private Limited and M/s. Green Space (Govinda Reddy) seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit is pending. M/s. Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar and M/s. Kedia Homes Private Limited filed O.S.No.335 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking injunction against Mr. K. Bharat Kumar. M/s. Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar and M/s. Kedia Homes Private Limited filed O.S.No.200 of 2020 on the file of Principal District Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking declaration of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.884 of 2007 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and the said suit is pending. 21. K. Bharat Kumar. M/s. Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar and M/s. Kedia Homes Private Limited filed O.S.No.200 of 2020 on the file of Principal District Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking declaration of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.884 of 2007 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and the said suit is pending. 21. Thus, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant No.4, all these proceedings prima facie show that the disputes among the heirs of late Laximnarayana involve multiple properties situated in various survey numbers in Puppalaguda Village. There is no concrete material placed before this Court as to whether the above said suits were filed in respect of joint family properties of late Laxminarayana and his family members. Thus, the trial Court shall look into all these aspects by giving reasonable opportunities to both the sides to the contest the proceedings. 22. In view of the above facts and circumstances and since the trial Court failed to consider the contentions raised by defendant No.4 in the written statement about the alienations made by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No.4 and as the exparte impugned decree is set aside vide order dated 17.01.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CRP No.2 of 2015 and as it appears that several suits were filed in respect of joint family properties of late Laxminarayana and his family members, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires a fresh trial, wherein all relevant issues can be framed and decided particularly those relating to the including of all joint family properties, the validity of alienations and the rights of all the parties including the defendant No.5. VIII. CONCLUSION 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 passed by the learned III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. IX . RESULT 24. This Appeal Suit is allowed and thereby the matter is remanded to the learned III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District for fresh adjudication. The parties are at liberty to include all those properties which are liable for partition and not included earlier in the suit. IX . RESULT 24. This Appeal Suit is allowed and thereby the matter is remanded to the learned III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District for fresh adjudication. The parties are at liberty to include all those properties which are liable for partition and not included earlier in the suit. The Trial Court shall frame all necessary and relevant issues, including those relating to non-joinder of properties, afford reasonable opportunities to all the parties including defendant No.5 and adjudicate the suit afresh strictly in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the remarks or observations made by this Court in this appeal while adjudicating the rights of the parties afresh. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in the appeal, shall stand closed.