The only remedy to challenge a preliminary decree in a partition suit is through an appeal, not through the final decree petition.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioners/respondents No.3 and 4 to set aside the order dated 03.05.2023 passed in I.A.No.169 of 2023 in I.A.No.114 of 2023 (old No.I.A.No.220 of 2016) in O.S.No.170 of 1990 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, and pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard Sri M.Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

3. In the suit for partition filed initially by R-22 and R-1 (added by R-22 and later R-22 died), a preliminary decree was passed on 18.08.1997 against D-1 to D-17 that the plaint A schedule items 1, 3 to 8, 16, 17 and ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties to be divided into 4 (four) equal shares and allotment and possession of P1 & P2, D-1 and D-10, each one such share. The petitioners 1 & 2 are D-3 & D-4 in the suit, but minors aged 15 years and 13 years as on the date of filing of the suit in 1990. So by the date of passing of the preliminary decree, they must be majors. They were represented by a guardian (father D-1) in the suit. Now the petitioners (D-3 & D-4) says the lands covered by S.Nos.313/3, 318/2, 317/1, 317/5 & 317/6 are the self acquired properties of their paternal grand mother Smt Lakshmamma. Though she executed a Will dated 27.06.1985 in favour of D-3 & D-4 (father as guardian) bequeathing the above properties, having realized that Will operates on her death only, she executed a registered partition deed dated 16.05.1988 to D-3 & D-4 to pass over the title immediately. But D-1 filed the partition deed only and it was disputed by the plaintiffs. So the petitioners filed I.A.No.143 of 2023 in I.A.No.220 of 2016 (petition for final decree) along with a Photostat copy of the Will dated 27.06.1985 seeking leave to file it and the petition was allowed. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No.169 of 2023 to permit them to adduce in I.A.No.220 of 2023 evidence of documents filed with I.A.No.143 of 2023. The petition was opposed and dismissed. Hence, this revision petition was filed.

4. The revision petitioners want to adduce additional evidence by leading evidence of the Will dated 27.06.1985. Thereby, the petitioners want to challenge the preliminary decree by claiming right in the properties which were already decreed to be partitioned. The only remedy that the petitioners could have availed is by challenging the preliminary decree in appeal and not by challenging the same in the final decree petition. Even as per the petitioners, they attained majority during the pendency of the appeal in A.S.No.1194 of 1997 filed before this High Court. Therefore, this Court does not see any irregularity or illegality committed by the trial Court in dismissing the petition vide the order impugned in the revision petition. Thus, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.