COMMON JUDGMENT:- These two revisions are filed, challenging the final decree dated 5.2.2007, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in O.S. No.54 of 1981. CRP No.3144 of 2007 is filed by defendant No.4, and CRP No.3914 of 2007 is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3, in the suit. The 1st respondent, in both the revisions, is the plaintiff. The 1st defendant died, and the plaintiff claims to be her sole legal representative. The dispute, between the parties, has a chequered career. The circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the CRPs are as under:

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

3. One Sri Sardar Santh Singh had two wives by name Rama Bai and Juguna Bai, i.e. defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff was adopted son of Santh Singh and his wife Rama Bai. The 3rd defendant by name, Sathnam Kaur, is the daughter of Santh Singh, through Juguna Bai, the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of suit schedule properties. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree, on 11.10.1990, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the suit schedule property; the two widows of Santh Singh, i. e., defendants 1 and 2, shall be entitled to 1/3rd share in common; and the 3rd defendant is entitled to the balance of 1/3rd share.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the plaintiff filed A.S. No.1689 of 1991, before this Court. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died. Thereupon, he filed CMP No.11316 of 1991, with a prayer that he be recorded as the legal representative of the deceased. The same was ordered on 27.8.1991. Subsequently, he has withdrawn the appeal, as not pressed. Afterwards, he filed LA. No.697 of 1993, with a prayer to pass final decree, and LA. No.89 of 1999, for appointment of a Commissioner.

5. Before the final decree came to be passed in the suit, one Smt. Nimma Kaur, filed LA. No.149l of 1993, stating that she is the foster daughter of Santh Singh and Rama Bai, and that under a deed of settlement, dated 30.12.1978, she was allotted 1/3rd share in the properties of Santh Singh. The trial Court dismissed the LA., on 12.7.1996. Thereupon, she filed CRP No.3 124 of 1996 before this Court. It was allowed on 28.7.1997, and she was added as defendant No.4, to the suit.

6. After the 4th defendant was added, the trial Court re-opened the preliminary decree and carried necessary changes in the plaint and other proceedings, through two separate orders, dated 26.11.2002. The plaintiff filed CRP Nos.6088 of 2002 and 620 of 2003, against the said orders, and through common order dated 8.12.2003, this Court allowed the CRPs., and set aside the orders. Consequently, the trial Court took up the enquiry into I.A. No.697 of 1993, for passing the final decree.

7. The plaintiff pleaded that on account of the death of the 1st defendant, he became entitled to her share, i.e., half share in the 1/3rd, that is allotted to defendants 1 and 2, together, and thereby, his share is enlarged to half. The defendants raised several objections, as to the claim of the plaintiff, as the sole legal representative of the deceased, 1st defendant, and the denial of share to the 4th defendant. The trial Court overruled the objections, and passed a final decree, directing that the plaintiff is entitled to half of the suit schedule properties; 2nd defendant, to 1/6th; and the 3rd defendant, to 1/3rd. The 4th defendant was denied share in the property.

8. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in CRP No.3144 of 2007 (defendant No.4), submits that, once his client was added as a party to the suit, before the final decree came to be passed, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court, to decide her claim. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470, he contends that a preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition is liable to be changed, or modified, whenever a new party is adde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document