Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Jennifer Messias – Appellant
Versus
Leonard G Lobo – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7980-7981 of 2026 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8716-8717 of 2026
Decided On : 18-05-2026
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XX Rules 12 and 18 read with Section 2(2) – Partition suit with mesne profit – Preliminary and final decree – Fundamentally, distinction between preliminary and final decree is that, preliminary decree merely declares rights and shares of parties and leaves room for some further inquiry to be held and conducted pursuant to directions made in preliminary decree which inquiry having been conducted and rights of parties finally determined decree incorporating such determination needs to be drawn up which is final decree – Suit comes to an end only when final decree is drawn – Trial Court was well within its jurisdiction in proceeding with bidding of Subject Matter and apportioning half of sale consideration between parties – However, because of Order of High Court, same could not be proceeded with – Execution Case restored to file. (Paras 13, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Civil Appeals arise from Orders dated 27.07.2023 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2005 of 2022 and 20.03.2025 in Review Petition No. 947 of 2023, in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The impugned Orders, in effect, have set aside the Execution Proceedings pending before Additional Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 7A/2011.
Findings of Court:
While apportioning, Trial Court takes into account the condition of mesne profits and disburses the balance to the Respondent. The parties are permitted to bid along with other participants in the course of the sale of the Subject Matter. We take note that the Appellant is a septuagenarian and direct the Trial Court to complete the proceedings within 2 months of receiving this Order. The Registry of this Court is directed to communicate the Order forthwith.
Result : Civil Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Civil Appeals arise from Orders dated 27.07.2023 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2005 of 2022 and 20.03.2025 in the Review Petition No. 947 of 2023, in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The impugned Orders, in effect, have set aside the Execution Proceedings pending before the IInd Additional Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 7A/2011. The outcome of the adjudication appears simple, but the Civil Appeals exemplify the Comedy of Errors1[An event or series of events made ridiculous by the number of errors that were made throughout. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)]. The polemic, which is the subject of the final adjudication, is whether the Decree dated 13.04.2012 is a Preliminary or a Final Decree in itself, and whether the same could be put to Execution. The narrative sounds interesting to the fraternity. Still, the ordeal the Appellant is undergoing reminds us of the oft-quoted expression that “the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree”.
3. Jennifer/Appellant and Peter Messias were married in 1980. In 1991, the couple purchased Flat No. 101, Amba Apartment, Civil Line, Jabalpur, also referred to as 101-A in the Advocate Commissioner’s Report (“Subject Matter”) from their combined income. The couple was judicially separated in 2003, which this Court confirmed in 2004. Peter Messias was stated to have possession of the Subject Matter purchased by the couple. On 26.03.2014, Peter Messias died. Leonard G. Lobo/the Respondent, claims to be representing the interests of the deceased Peter Messias on the basis of a registered Will dated 22.03.2014. In the Civil Appeals, we are not examining the relationship or proximity of the respondent to the deceased Peter Messias. The Respondent has remained in possession of the Subject Matter of the Appeals by claiming through the late Peter Messias.
4. Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 7A/2011 for partition and separate possession of the Subject Matter. On 13.04.2012, the Trial Court passed a Preliminary Decree. The clauses relevant in the Preliminary Decree are excerpted:
(B) The plaintiff is entitled to receive mesne profits of Rs. 1500/- per month in lieu of rent for her share of the suit property from the date of filing the suit till the date of taking possession of her one-half share.
xxx
2. And it is further ordered and decreed
be and is hereby appointed as Commissioner to make partition of the said property according to the shares given above.
3. That if the said Commissioner finds that partition cannot be made equal between the parties according their respective rights without prejudice to the rights and interest of some of them he shall report the amount of compensation to be made by the parties for quality of partition.”
5. The Appellant, as part of an intentional or unintentional comedy of errors, filed an Execution Application to execute the Decree dated 13.04.2012 in Civil Suit No. 7A/2011. On 07.08.2013, the Execution Petition was dismissed. The Appellant was prompted to file an application under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), numbered Execution No. EX-A-1600007/14. Peter Messias died on 26.03.2014. On 15.07.2015, the Respondent was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Peter Messias in the Execution Petition. On 13.05.2016, the High Court dismissed Civil Revision No. 47 of 2016, challenging the Respondent’s impleadment. While dismissing the Revision, it was directed that the Appellant’s application under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC be treated as an Interlocutory Application within the pending civil suit, rather than a separate Execution Proceeding. In terms of the said condition, the Execution Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner, and the Advocate Commissioner’s R
Partition suit – Suit comes to an end only when final decree is drawn.
A preliminary decree in a partition suit which provides specific mechanisms for partition or sale in the event of impartibility is enforceable, and the court should proceed suo motu to finalize parti....
Suit is decreed or a preliminary decree is granted within a year or two, the final decree proceeding and execution takes decades for completion. This is an area which contributes to considerable dela....
Execution of a preliminary decree is not maintainable without a final decree, necessitating adherence to prescribed procedures for partition.
The court clarified the rights of the parties in the subject property and directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to effectuate the preliminary decree for partition, in line with the provisi....
A preliminary decree can be passed in a suit for partition without first identifying the properties involved in the suit, and the identification of properties can be done subsequent to the declaratio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
