Smt.Pochamma & Ors. v. This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated

Smt. Pochamma and others

1.K.Pushapavathi and others And … Petitioners …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.642 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 04-12-2009, in E.A.No.126 of 2009 in E.P.No.190 of 2008 in O.S.No.425 of 1997, on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioners-proposed J.Drs. 10 to 13 in the Execution Proceedings, was allowed.

When a decree is passed in a partition suit, normally it determines and declares the rights of the parties. Ordinarily, there are two decrees in a suit for partition (i) one preliminary (ii) one final. Whereas preliminary decree determines and declares the rights of parties and shares of all eligible claimants, final decree carries out and effects partition by metes and bounds of the property on the basis of preliminary decree. In other words a preliminary decree for partition is really declaratory in nature and it is implicit in that decree that further proceedings are required to effect partition by metes and bounds.

Admittedly, the suit was filed for partition of the properties and a preliminary decree was passed and the same has become final. The plaintiffs filed an application for passing of final decree. Accordingly, final decree was passed duly dividing the properties by metes and bounds. In pursuance of the said decree, Execution Petition was filed and thereafter the present application was filed.

Learned counsel appearing respondents herein contended that the respondents have got right, title and interest in the property as they are children of third wife of P.Balaiah. Once the shares of the parties have been determined by the trial Court, question of impleading the parties does not arise. For the purpose of division of properties, the parties, who are arrayed in the final decree or their legal representatives alone are entitled to challenge the division of property, if any. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.