1. Lakanam Venkata Ramana Rao filed O.S.No.257 of 2006 against Ponnamanda Alivelamma, for partition of vacant site admeasuring 540 Sq.yards in premises bearing No.4-5-22 situated at Ward No.4 of Narsapur Town in West Godavari District. After regular trial, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narasapuram, passed preliminary decree on 20.6.2007. The preliminary decree directed partition of plaint schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and defendant was directed to give one such share to plaintiff and deliver separate possession. Thereafter, accepting the report of advocate commissioner, trial Court passed final decree on 31.12.2008, showing plaintiff and defendant as parties. The final decree was engrossed on Non-Judicial (NJ) stamp papers and the same was forwarded to Sub-Registrar, Narasapuram. In the mean while, unfortunately, Venkata Ramana Rao died on 04.2.2009 at Nellore. His wife, Smt.Padmavathi, filed an application being I.A.No.363 of 2009 to recognize her as legal representative of deceased Venkata Ramana Rao and insert her name in the final decree duly erasing the name of her husband in the Court order. The respondent did not oppose the application. But the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Court has become functus officio and cannot recognize any representative to the deceased, who died subsequent to passing of final decree. The said order dated 30.3.2009 is assailed in this revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. This Court heard learned Counsel for petitioner. As the respondent did not raise any objection, it is not necessary to order notice to respondent. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in M.Manik Reddy v M.Anasuya Devi 2001(5) ALT 367 (DB) and Angara Naga Venkata Vani Srinivasa Rao v Angara Seetha Mahalakshmamma (died) per L.Rs 2006(5) ALT 579.

3. There is no dispute that final decree engrossed on NJ stamp papers requires registration as per Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. There is also no dispute that final decree dated 31.12.2008 has been engrossed on NJ stamp papers and sent to Sub-Registrar, Narasapuram, on 17.4.2009. There is a gap of four months between passing final decree and sending engrossed final decree for registration. In the mean while, though original plaintiff submitted NJ stamp papers on 02.1.2009, he died on 04.2.2009. In such a situation, if the name of legal representative is not inserted in the final decree in the place of deceased, original plaintiff, it would result in miscarriage of justice and also render the whole exercise of trial in the suit, preliminary decree and passing of final decree futile. In such circumstances, even though engrossing of final decree is a ministerial act, till proper registration is made giving finality to Court proceedings, the Court cannot be described as functus officio. In this connection, a reference may be made to Ghantesher Ghosh v Madan Mohan Ghosh (1996) 11 SCC 446 : AIR 1997 SC 471.

4. In the above mentioned case, a residential house was owned by three brothers. One of them died and his widow inherited 1/3rd share. She filed a suit for partition. A final decree was passed. Thereafter she executed a gift deed in favour of her brother, Ghantesher Ghosh, who was a stranger to joint family. The donee filed an execution petition for execution of final decree. While the same was pending, one of the Judgment Debtors (J.Drs) died and Madan Mohan Ghosh, his legal heir stepped into the shoes of deceased J.Dr. He filed an application under Section 4 of Partition Act, 1893, for enforcing his claim of pre-emption against Ghantesher Ghosh, who got gift from the widow of one of the brothers. The same was dismissed on the ground that such an application after final decree is not maintainable. The High Court held that such an application maintainable till the final decree is fully executed and satisfied by actual division of property by metes and bounds