The third defendant in O.S.No.397/2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kannur is the appellant. The suit was dismissed after trial. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.165/2007 in District Court, Thalassery. The third defendant filed a cross objection against a finding in the judgment of the lower court. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. In view of that finding the learned Sessions Judge allowed the cross appeal also. In the judgment the following observations are seen: “The 3rd defendant has a case that the trust has extinguished as there is no beneficiary and the house in the property has deteriorated. But the court below found that the trust has not been extinguished. It has been observed in the judgment in the appeal that the said finding has not been challenged. But it is seen from the Cross-Appeal that the said finding has been challenged.”
2. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/third defendant is that a clarification may be F.A.O.No.73 of 2014 -2-
made that the question with regard to the extinguishment of the trust is left open.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
There has been no representation for the respondents.
4. The judgment of the appellate court itself shows that the trial court has to consider again the question of extinguishment of the trust. So even without a clarification the learned Munsiff has to consider the question again.
In the result, this F.A.O. is disposed of with the direction to the learned Munsiff to consider the question of extinguishment of the trust again as directed by the learned District Judge.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/