Respondent No.1 filed OS No.41 of 1981 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 5.3.1984. Respondent No.1 filed AS No.20n of 1986 before this Court. Through judgment, dated 12.11.200 I, this Court allowed the appeal and passed a preliminary decree directing that respondent No.1 is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property. After the preliminary decree became final, respondent No.1 filed an application before the trial Court with a prayer to pass final decree. When the enquiry into the final decree was in progress, respondent No.1 filed IA No.141 of 2004 for mesne profits. The petitioner filed a counter opposing the application. The trial Court passed a final decree and it is stated that the same was executed through process of the Court. By that time, IA No.141 of 2004 was pending. It was taken up for hearing thereafter. The petitioner raised an objection as to the competence of the trial Court to consider the application for mesne profits, on two grounds. The first was that neither the preliminary decree nor the final decree provided for grant of mesne profits. The second was that once the final decree was passed, it is not competent for a Court to detern1ine or award mesne profits. Through its order, dated 21.10.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision.

2. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the absence of specific direction in the preliminary decree, there was no basis for respondent No.1 to file an application for mesne profits. He contends that the relief, if any in this behalf could have been granted before or along with the final decree and not thereafter. He places reliance upon certain precedents.

3. Sri 0. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that it is not necessary in a suit for partition that a prayer for mesne profits must be made nor is it essential that relief on those lines must find place in the preliminary decree. He submits that it is always competent for a party to the suit for partition to claim mesne profits. He too places reliance upon some decided cases.

4. The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether the application filed by respondent No.1 for mesne profits was maintainable?

5. The objection raised by the petitioner is twofold, namely that the application cannot be maintained unless specific prayer for that purpose was made in the suit and the relief was granted in the preliminary decree. The second objection is that even where it is otherwise permissible, the relief as regards mesne profits can be granted only before the final decree was passed. The justification pleaded for this is that an order awarding mesne profits partakes the character of final decree and there cannot be more final decrees than one, in a suit for partition.

6. As regards the first contention, it needs to be seen that a suit for partition has several characteristics of its own. The first is that it is not an adversarial litigation pure and simple, where the plaintiffs and defendants stand pitted against each other. In a suit for partition, some of the defendants can very well support the plea of the plaintiffs. The task before the Court would be to find out as to whether the suit schedule properties are liable to be partitioned and to detem1ine the shares of the respective parties.

7. Coming to the stages, unlike in most of other suits, a preliminary decree is passed as to the availability of the property for partition and detem1ination of shares and that in turn is followed by final decree proceedings. A decree in ordinary suits and a final decree wherever required to be passed, would nom1ally tem1inate the respective suits. However, in case of partition suits, there can be more preliminary decrees than one