The application for final decree proceedings in a partition suit is a continuation of the suit, and no specific limitation is prescribed for filing such an application.

( 1 ) THE appellants have preferred this regular first appeal against the order dated 18. 4. 1995 passed in FDP. No. 3/63 on the file of the Civil Judge, Davangere, dismissing the said application for drawing up of a final decree as not maintainable

( 2 ) THE first appellant P. B. Kotturbasappa and his brothers filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit schedule property. After contest, the suit came to be decreed on 16. 2. 1972, holding that the plaintiffs 1, 8 (a) to (h) and 9 are entitled for partition and separate possession of their four annas share in the plaint schedule property and also four annas share in the profits of the joint business from the year 1929 to date of suit and the defendants are also directed to render accounts. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 11th defendant, K. B. Rudrappa preferred a regular first appeal No. 73/72, challenging the correctness of the said preliminary decree. Similarly, P. B. Kotturbasappa and others also preferred regular first appeal No. 83/72 challenging that portion of the judgment and decree which was against them. These two regular first appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 28th September, 1975. For the purpose of this appeal, it is sufficient to note that in the aforesaid decree which is affirmed by the High Court, the first plaintiff was declared to be entitled to 0. 03 Np. share in a rupee and the accounting in regard to his share to be rendered by the defendants from Diwali, 1947 onwards. It appears that except the first appellant, all the other parties have entered into compromises and the contesting respondents now claim to be the owners of 0. 97 Np. share in a rupee. In other words, 0. 03 Np. share of the first plaintiff is not in dispute.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, P. B. Kotturbasappa and others filed an application under Section 151 CPC for partition and separate possession of the said 0. 03 Np. share and for accounts. Though the provision invoked was under Section 151 CPC, the said application was numbered as FDP. 3/83. The respondents contested the said application by filing detailed objections. In the aforesaid petition, apart from the original first plaintiff, four other petitioners were impleaded, that is because, it is averred in the petition that Sri P. B. Kotturbasappa sold his share to one B. M. Halasiddappa-petitioner No. 5, under a registered sale deed dated 23. 3. 1970 for a sum of Rs. 5, 000/ -. Thereafter, the said property has been reconveyed back by the said B. M. Halasiddappa, under a registered sale deed dated 13. 12. 1978 in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4, who are none other than the children of Sri P. B. Kotturbasappa as an abundant caution. Therefore, all of them have joined as petitioners to the final decree proceeding. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, petitioners 2 to 4 prayed for drawing up of a final decree and directing respondents to render the accounts as ordered in the decree. Respondents 1, 2, 11, 13 to 15 mainly filed objections, contending that the petition is not maintainable in law. It is their specific case that the alienation in the petition are hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Vacant Lands in urban areas (Prohibition and Alienation) Act, 1975 and the petitioners 2 to 5 being strangers of the suit schedule property are not entitled to pursue this petition. They further contended that the petition is barred by time. The 15th respondent contended that he has been impleaded as a party in proceedings as per the order of the High Court, dated 11. 12. 1986 as he has acquired the interest by way of purchase of the suit schedule property, he contended that, after he became exclusive owner of the property in question he has got alienated and paid improvement charges to City Municipal Council, Davangere and he has put up 8 shop premises and has got plan approved for constructing a cinema and he is also constructing commercial comp