L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 170 of 1991, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, are the petitioners herein. They challenge the order dated 11-10-2004 passed by the trial Court, impleading the first petitioner (sic. respondent) herein as one of the parties to the suit.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the petitioners herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property against the respondents 2 to 5 herein, the defendants. A preliminary decree was passed on 19-7-1995, directing that the petitioners on the one hand, and the respondents 2 to 5 on the other hand, shall be entitled to two equal shares in the suit schedule property. The respondents 2 to 5 herein filed A. S. No. 32 of 1995, in the Court of District Judge, Medak at Sanaareddy, and it was dismissed on 25-8-2000. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 2 to 5 filed S. A. No. 129 of 2001, and it was also dismissed by this Court on 8-2-2002 Thereafter, the petitioners filed i. A. No. 43 of 2003, in the trial Court, praying for final decree.

( 3 ) AT that stage, the first respondent filed I. A. No. 59 of 2004, under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. , with a prayer to implead him as one of the parties to the final decree proceedings. According to him, he purchased the entire suit schedule property from respondents 2 to 5. through a sale deed dated 20-8-1991, and that the suit was filed in collusion with his vendors, only with a view to defeat his rights. The application was resisted by the petitioners. On a consideration of the rival contentions, the trial Court allowed the I. A.

( 4 ) SRI Mohd. Imtiyaz AN, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe petitioners, submits that once the preliminary decree passed in the suit has become final, with the dismissal of the first and second appeals, it is not permissible for the first respondent to agitate his rights in this suit. He contenos that the respondents 2 to 5 did not take any plea of tho sale of the suit schedule property in the written statement, and the first respondent cannot be permitted to canvass the correctness of the preliminary decree, or to scuttle the final decree proceedings.

( 5 ) SRI V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the very fact that the sale in favour of his client took place in the month of August 1991, and that the suit was filed in December 1991, discloses collusion between the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit. He submits that the respondents 2 to 5 did not dispute the sale in favour of his client, and in that view of the matter, the first respondent is entitled to get himself impleaded and to canvass his rights. He also submits that the sale itself was not disclosed by the respondents 2 to 5 at any stage in the proceedings in the suit, and in that view of the matter, it is essential that the first respondent be made a party to the proceedings. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Adivi Naidu and others v. E. Duruvasulu Naidu and others

( 6 ) IT is a matter of record that the petitioners filed a suit for partition against the respondents 2 to 5, and the preliminary decree dated 19-7-1995 passed therein had become final. Once the preliminary decree has become final, it needs to be given effect to in the final decree proceedings. Time and again, it has been settled through the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court that the correctness of a preliminary decree cannot be canvassed in the final decree proceedings. The parties or persons claiming through them have to abide by the terms of the preliminary decree. If any third party is aggrieved by the preliminary decree in any manner, the only course open to him is to file an independent suit and to put forth his contentions.

( 7 ) IN the instant case, the trial court passed a preliminary decree to the effect that the petitioners are entitled to half of the suit schedule property, and the respondents 2 to 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document