IMPORTANT POINT
In final decree proceedings, an application regarding a Will suffices as a pleading, negating the need for amendments to the petition.

ORDER :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the FDP Court on an application (I.A. No. 14) under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The plaintiffs sought modification of the preliminary decree, asserting that their mother, who was allotted a 1/12th share, had bequeathed her share to them through a registered Will dated 22.11.2011. The FDP Court rejected this application, citing that although the Will was produced and two witnesses were examined, there were no supporting pleadings. This order is now under challenge.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the counsel for the respondents/defendants. Reviewed the challenged order.

3. Before discussing the facts of the case, it is pertinent to outline the family tree of the parties involved :

4. Mallavva, widow of Tukkappa, along with her daughters (plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 7), filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 307/2007. The Court decreed the suit, granting a 1/11th share in the 1/12th share of late Tukkappa to plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs then filed an application in I.A. No. 14, requesting the FDP Court to modify the preliminary decree due to the testamentary arrangement made by plaintiff No. 2. In the affidavit supporting the application, the plaintiffs stated that their mother bequeathed her share in the presence of two witnesses, Shivakka Sangalad of Navalur and Nagappa Ganti of Narendra. She was healthy and medically fit while executing the Will dated 22.11.2011. Although the FDP Court allowed the plaintiffs to lead evidence and examined two witnesses to prove the Will's due execution, the application was rejected on the grounds that the due execution of the Will was not supported by specific pleadings.

5. In the partition suit, the court decreed and plaintiff No.2, Mallavva, would be granted a 1/11th share in the 1/12th share of the late Tukkappa's property. Following this, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A. No. 14, requesting the FDP Court to modify the preliminary decree due to a testamentary arrangement made by plaintiff No. 2. The affidavit supporting the application stated that their mother had bequeathed her share in the presence of two witnesses, Shivakka Sangalad of Navalur and Nagappa Ganti of Narendra. It was claimed that she was healthy and medically fit at the time of executing the Will on 22.11.2011. The FDP Court allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence and examined two witnesses to prove the Will's due execution. However, the application was ultimately rejected on the grounds that there were no specific pleadings to support the due execution of the Will.

6. Under the provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), when final decree proceedings are pending in a partition suit, the situation becomes complex if a party dies and a Will is introduced. Understanding the legal framework and procedural requirements in such scenarios is crucial.

Final Decree Proceedings and Death of a Party

7. Order 20 Rule 18 of the CPC deals with the procedure to be followed in partition suits when a preliminary decree has been passed. It sets the stage for the actual division of the property. When a party to these proceedings dies, several legal questions arise, particularly regarding the distribution of the deceased's share.

Introduction of a Will During Pendency

8. If a party dies during the pendency of the final decree proceedings and a Will is set up by filing an application, there are specific procedural steps to follow:

8.1. The party setting up the Will must file an application in the final decree proceedings to bring the testamentary disposition to the Court's notice. This application must