is that the suit land is their ancestral property which is evidenced by registered settlement deed, Ex.B1, which was later partitioned and thereby the defendants came to own the said land under subsequent sale deedEx.B2. Irrespective of the said rival contentions, in order to completely and effectively adjudicate upon the controversy the appellate court was of the view that the localization is primarily important with reference to the records of the Panchayat so that the contention of the plaintiffs in the representative suit as to whether there is any basis for claiming the suit land as a communal land would stand clarified by such localization. Since the said exercise was not done and the said evidence, which was the best evidence in the opinion of the appellate court, was not on record, the appellate court was well within its right to remit the suits with a direction. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellate court had no such power to remit the suit. In fact, such a power is clearly vested in the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 23-A C.P.C., where the appellate court was of the view that retrial by requiring additional evidence in the form of localization of suit land was necessary. I, therefore, do not find any reason to take a different view and substitute the discretion exercised by the lower appellate court.
