The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 becomes relevant only at the time of actual division of the land pursuant to a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession. The court emphasized that the Act was repealed during the pendency of the suit, and therefore, its provisions could not be applied to the proceeding.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 14-3-1991 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. no. 21709 of 1990.

( 2 ) THE learned single judge has rejected the petition therefore, the petitioners inthe writ petition have come up in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal respondent no. 2 expired therefore, his legal representatives have been brought on record and they have also been served with the notice.

( 3 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioners/appellants sought for quashing the orderdated 18-2-1989 passed by the special deputy commissioner (revenue), Bangalore district in case no. O. s. /ex. No. 3/1988-89. They have also sought for quashing the order dated 16-8-1990 passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal in appeal no. 193 of 1989. Both the orders have been produced as annexures-a and b in the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE matter arises under the following circumstances:there was original suit no. 71 of 1962 filed in the court of the civil judge, Bangalore (rural) district, Bangalore which came to be decided by the first additional civil judge for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the suit in the following terms:" it is ordered and decreed that declaring that the sale deed ex. D. 1, dated 6-2-1957 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4 of items 4 and 5 of suit 'a' schedule is not binding on the shares of pjaintiff and the 1st defendant and it is further ordered and decreed that plaintiffs are together entitled to 5/12th share and the 1st defendant to l/6th share in suit items 2 to 11 of 'a' schedule except no. 300/1-b and no. 300/1-c in item no. 11 and they are also entitled to their respective shares in movable properties, or movable properties or its value as mentioned in the list prepared by the commissioner in the inventary and it is also further ordered and decreed that plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 do recover their respective shares by partition by metes and bounds. The partition of the lands assessed to payment of revenue to government shall be made by the deputy commissioner or his gazetted subordinate deputed by him in this behalf as required under section 54, cpc and the partition of other properties shall be divided by the commissioner appointed by the court in this behalf. "aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, defendant no. 2 went up in appeal. The plaintiffs also preferred a cross-objection because the trial court had refused a decree for accounting of the profits. In the appeal, the learned district judge modified the decree of the trial court and held that items 2 and 3 of 'a' schedule were not the joint family properties and items 4 and 5 did not belong to the joint family therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in those items; that only half portion in items 6, 7 and 8 of the 'a' schedule were available for partition and the remaining half belonged to defendant no. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree of the appellate court, the plaintiffs preferred regular second appeal no. 1023 of 1971. This court by the judgment and decree dated 23-8-1974 set aside and the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on items 4 and 5 and held that the alienation of the suit items 4 and 5 of the 'a' schedule properties was not binding upon the shares of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The finding recorded by the district court regarding items 2 and 3 was confirmed and it was held that those properties were not proved to be the joint family properties. Similarly, the finding recorded by the district judge in the appeal regarding items 6 and 8 was also confirmed and it was held that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to the respective shares in the half portion of items 6 to 8 and remaining half portion exclusively belonged to defendant no. 2. The matter did not stop at that stage. There was a civil petition no. 46 of 1978 filed for review of the judgment a