Sinha, J.

1. The appeal and the application have been filed by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that She being the daughter of one Meraha Hansdan is the only heir of her deceased lather and also prayed for recovery of possession of the lands mentioned in the plaint. A prayer lor mesne profits was also made. Her case is that her father, who will hereafter be mentioned as Moraha, had three wives only, and he had seven daughters by the three wives. The other daughters have been made defendants 2nd party. Moraha had no son, and, in view of the Santhal laws and custom, he got the plaintiff married to one Mandal Murmu in ghar jamai form, and since the marriage, which happened twenty years before the date of the suit, Manual Murmu had been living there as gharjamai. Moraha died in 1350 B. S., and after his death, plaintiffs husband had been appointed the Prodhan of the village, a post which was held until death by Moraha. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant 1 Charani Hansda had been illegally interfering with her possession which led to a criminal case and it ended in conviction of Charani Hansda under Section 447, Penal Code, in the trial Court, but he was acquitted by the appellate Court. Emboldened by the decision in the criminal case, defendant 1 is said to have dispossessed the plaintiff from these lands.

3. Defendants second party, the other daughters of Moraha, did not contest the suit, but they supported the plaintiffs case. Defendant 1 Cbarani Hansda claimed to be the son of Moraha, and denied the fact that the plaintiff was married with Mandal Murmu in gharjamai form. He claimed possession over the lands from even during the life time of his father Moraha. The following issues were framed in the case:

"1. Has the plaintiff Delho Hansdah any cause of action against the defendant 1st party, Charan Hansdah

2. Whether the plaintiff Delho Hansdah was married in gharjamai form with Mondal Murmu

3. Whether Charan Hansda is the Son of Moraha Hansdah from his fourth wife"

4. The first court held that defendant 1 Charani Hansda was not the son of Moraha and that the plaintiffs marriage with Mandal Murmu was performed in gharjamai form, and further that the plaintiff along with her husband was in possession of her fathers lands from which she had been dispossessed by defendant 1. In view of these findings, the suit was decreed. On appeal by defendant 1, the learned District Judge has held that defendant 1 is the son of Moraha by his fourth wife named Cheeta. In regard to the marriage of the plaintiff, he held that the marriage was in gharjamai form. He further held that it was not possible to come to any finding about defendant 1 being in possession of the lands in suit. There were two other questions raised before the learned Judge--one was in regard to the right of succession when the deceased had left a son and a daughter married in gharjamai form; and the other was, whether the suit was maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff. As no issues were framed on these two points, the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the first court and remanded the suit for re-hearing in the light of the, observations made by him.

5. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents to the effect that the second appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as the remand made in this case was not one under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P. C. In my view, the preliminary objection is well-founded. An appeal is provided under Order 43, Rule 1, Sub-clause (u), Civil P. C. from an order under Order 41, Rule 23. There is no provision for an appeal from an order of remand made on facts similar to the facts in the present case. I would, therefore, hold that the second appeal is not maintainable and it must be dismissed.

6. The question now is whether the order of remand made by the lower appellate court was within the jurisdiction of that court. According to the findings of the learned Judge, the appeal could not be decided because on two points urged in the appeal no issue had been raised and no findings given; and in the absence of any finding of fact in regard to the points raised, the appeal could not be properly decided. Such a case is expressly covered by Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P. C. which runs as follows: (His Lordship after quoting the provisions of the rule proceeded). In my judgment, these provisions fully cover the facts of the present case, and, therefore, the learned Judge should have made use of the provisions contained in this rule.

Mr. Ghosal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, conceded that the case was covered by Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P. C., but he maintained that even in that view of the matter, the learned Judge was entitled to invoke the inherent powers of the court in remanding the suit as he did. I am unable to accede to this contention of Mr. Ghosal. If there is a specific provision laid down in the statute, the Court cannot make use of its inherent powers which can be resorted to only in cases where there is no provision of law to meet a particular case. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the court below had no jurisdiction to act under the inherent powers of the court under Section 151, Civil P. C. What he should have done was that he Should have framed issues and sent the issues so framed to the trial Court with a direction to take additional evidence on those issues, and after the findings on those issues were returned to the appellate court, the appellate Court should have finally decided the appeal. I can conceive of cases where neither Order 41, Rule 23 or Rule 25, Civil P. C. will meet the necessities of a case, and in that case certainly the Court would be entitled to take recourse to its inherent powers under Section 151, Civil P. C. to make a remand. Courts ought to be careful in exercising their inherent powers which can only be exercised where the legislature has not specifically dealt with a particular matter:--Abdul Karim Abu Ahmad Khan v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. AIR 1917 Cal 44 (FB) (A). In the view which I have taken, I would set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and send this case back to the learned Judge with a direction that he should frame his order of remand keeping the provisions of Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P. C. in view, and after he has received the findings on the issues raised by him from the trial Court, he will proceed to decide the appeal. It will be open to the plaintiff to meet the objection in regard to the amendment to the plaint if by so amending the maintainability of the suit by making suitable plaint, the nature of the suit is not altered.

7. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, the application is allowed and the rule is made absolute. Costs of hearing in this court will abide the result.