https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199749 A remand order under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC, once made in the same litigation, could not be reopened in the later appeal after remand because finality attached to the earlier interlocutory determination and the trial court remained bound by the remand directions. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 did not defeat the respondent's recovery claim on the facts found, since the appellants failed to show that the land fell within the statutory bar or that they had been accepted as occupancy tenants by the State. The decree for possession was therefore sustained. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:59:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199749 A remand order under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC, once made in the same litigation, could not be reopened in the later appeal after remand because finality attached to the earlier interlocutory determination and the trial court remained bound by the remand directions. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 did not defeat the respondent's recovery claim on the facts found, since the appellants failed to show that the land fell within the statutory bar or that they had been accepted as occupancy tenants by the State. The decree for possession was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199749