( 1 ) 3. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Adorn, Kurnool District in 1 A. No. 328 of 1983 in o. S. No. 8 of 1961.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the sole plaintiff for partition of theplaint schedule properties and for separate possession of her 1/3 share. The trial Court decreed the suit after overruling the objections of the defendants and passed a preliminary decree. The defendants carried the matter in appeal. By Judgment dated 26-9-1967 the Appellate Court modified the decree and declared the shares of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The plaintiff was held to be entitled to 64/384th share. Similarly, the share of each of the defendants was specified. The present petitioner who is the 10th defendant in the suit was given 4/384th share in b schedule business and in the properties of the c and f schedules other than the properties of c in Ex. B. 25 and Ex B, 26 of f schedule The 10th defendant thereafter filed I. A. No. 328 of 1983 for appointing a Commissioner to divide the properties and allot his share as per the decree.

( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the Legal Representatives of Defendant No. 1that such a petition is not maintainable in as much as there was no direction in the preliminary decree about the allotment and separate possession of the defendants.

( 4 ) THE trial Court rejected the plea of the first defendant and allowedthe petition and appointed a Commissioner to divide the properties by meters and bounds and for allotment of 4/384th share as specified in the preliminary decree. Aggrieved thereby, the Legal Representatives of the 1st defendant have preferred this revision.

( 5 ) WHEN the matter came up before our learned brother Ramaswamy,j. , it was argued that the petition was not maintainable. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Single Judge of this Court in rangayya Naidu K. Venkataswami Naidu 1986 (1) A. P. L. J. Page 272 in support of his contention that in the absence of a direction in the preliminary decree regarding allotment and separate possession in favour of the defendants, the petition is not maintainable unless and until the defendants get the preliminary decree modified. The learned single Judge was not inclined to agree with this view and referred it to the Division Bench as otherwise it would lead to conflict of Judicial opinion.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer toorder 20 Rule 18 and Order 26 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. Order 20 rule 18 is as follows:"where the Court passes a decree tor the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share therein, then, 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. if and in so far as such decree relates to any other immovable property or to movable property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot he conveniently made without further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property and giving such further directions as may be required. "from the aforementioned provision, it is seen that the preliminary decree can specify not only the share of the plaintiff, but also the shares of all the parties interested in the property and it also enables the Court which passes the decree to give such further directions as may be required.

( 7 ) ORDER 26 Rule 13 enables the Court which passes the preliminarydecree to appoint a Commissioner to make the partition according to the rights as declared in such decree. Where the rights of the parties arc declared in the preliminary decree a Commissioner can be appointed to partition the properties as per the rights declared in the decree. In the instant case, the preliminary decree in no unmistaken terms specifies the rights of the plaintiff as well as each of the defendants. No doubt the preliminary decree does not say that the defendant should be put m possession of then shares, but that in our opinion doe