(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) IT is not necessary to dilate all the details of the chequered history of the litigation. Suffice it to state that in OS No. 2 of 1975 the trial court passed a preliminary decree on 244-1982 thus:

"(1 that the Plaint Item 1 of B, C and D Schedule properties be divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares taking the good and bad qualities thereon. (2 that one such share be delivered to the plaintiff and the remaining half share be delivered to the 1st defendant; ...".

(3) IN the application for passing the final decree, there was a controversy which resulted in LPA No. 2651 of 1991. By judgment and decree dated 24/8/1994, the division bench directed thus:

"THIS, in our view, is not the correct position in law. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16/8/1991 in AS No. 2391 of 1990 confirming the order of the trial court dated 4/6/1990 in IA No. 626 of 1983 in OS No. 2 of 1975 and remit the case to the trial court to pass final decree keeping in view the observations made above. It is needless to mention that as the matter is pending final determination for quite some time, t