The main legal point established in the judgment is that in Final Decree proceedings, the Final Decree Court has the power and competence to determine disputes between parties, including testamentary succession, in order to draw up the final decree.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the impugned order dated the 27.08.2014 produced at Annexure-D and the impugned orders dated 13.10.2014 on I.A. Nos.10, 11, and 13 in F.D.P. No.3/1982 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, produced at Annexure-M, allow this writ petition with costs and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant in the circumstances of the case."

2. Final Decree Proceedings No.3/1982 had been filed to draw Final Decree in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.73/1969.

3. In the said Final Decree Proceedings, I.A. No.10 had been filed under Section 151 read with Order XX Rule 18 of CPC by the legal heirs of the deceased 10th defendant seeking for release of the share of the 10th defendant in their favour.

4. I.A. No.11 had been under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by 10th defendant seeking for temporary injunction restraining the 9th defendant from receiving any amount from the share of deceased 10th Defendant till the disposal of application in I.A. No.10.

5. I.A. No.13 was filed under Section 151 directing the 9th defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards rentals collected by her in the schedule property.

6. The said applications were filed by the wife of the 10th defendant on her own behalf and also other legal heirs of deceased 10th defendant who expired during the pendency of the Final Decree Proceedings.

7. The 9th defendant had sought for the share of the 10th Defendant to be allotted to 9th defendant contending that a Will had been executed in her favour by the 10th defendant.

8. This was opposed by contending that 9th defendant did not have any right over the property. The legal heirs of 10th defendant contended that 9th defendant did not have any right over the property. There is no Will executed in favour of 9th defendant, even if it was, the same would have to be proved in a separate proceeding. If at all 9th defendant wanted to lay a claim, same would have to be by way of separate proceedings, not in Final Decree Proceedings where right and title of 10th defendant had fructified and only legal heirs of 10th defendant could claim his share.

9. The said applications were objected to by the 9th defendant contending that there was a Will dated 11.08.2007 executed in her favour bequeathing the share of 10th defendant, as such she was entitled to the share of the 10th defendant and she was ready to prove the Will by examining the attestors of the Will and she sought permission to do so. Pending such consideration, it was contended by the 9th defendant that the other applications cannot be considered.

10. The trial Court vide its order dated 13.10.2014 dismissed IA-10 on the ground that the shares of the parties having already been determined, in the present case the dispute is as regard the succession of the share of 10th defendant under a Will, the aspect whether the Will is genuine or not cannot be decided in the Final Decree

11. Proceedings. IA No.11 and 13 were dismissed on the ground that since IA-10 is not maintainable, the question of granting an injunction and depositing of monies would not arise. It is aggrieved by the same that the Petitioner is before this Court.

12. Sri.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that

12.1. the entire reasoning of the trial Court is not proper. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Another -vs- Chairi Yanadi And Another [(2011) 9 SCC 788], more particularly para 19 thereof which is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

"19. The High Court was clearly in error in not properly appreciating the scope of Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C. In a suit for partition of immovable property, if such property is not assessed to the payment of revenue to the govern