JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The present respondent-Krishnabai had-filed Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, District Ahmednagar, for partition and separate possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, Krishnabai filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 237 of 1966 in the District Court, Ahmednagar, and the said appeal was allowed on 10-1-1968; and it was held that Krishnabai was having half share in the suit lands.

2.Krishnabai thereafter filed Regular Darkhast No. 9 of 1968. The case papers were then transmitted to the Collector, Ahmednagar, for effecting the partition of the agricultural lands, assessable to land revenue. The petitioner then raised objection that the decree was preliminary decree and it was not executable; and the case papers be called back from the Collector. Unless and until there is final decree, drawn as per the declaration made in the judgment of the Appellate Court, the decree cannot be put to execution. It was also contended that the consolidation scheme was made applicable to the village and, therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction to effect the partition by metes and bounds.

3.However, the learned Civil Judge, by his order dated 31-12-1990, rejected the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application, challenging the said order.

4.From the pleadings in the Civil Revision Application and the documents filed on record by the petitioner, themselves, it is brought on record that the partition of the land was effected as per the provisions of section 54, read with O. XX, R. 18, C.P.C. by the Collector and Krishnabai was put into possession of her share, as partitioned by the Collector, on 11-12-1987 by the Tahsildar, Akola. She executed a receipt, indicating that she received the possession of the land. Thereafter, on 16-9-1988, the petitioner filed application before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, challenging the proceedings of partition carried out by the Collector.

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the decree for partition passed on the basis of the judgment given by the Appellate Court was only a preliminary decree and that preliminary decree was put for execution by the present respondent by filing the execution petition. Unless there is a final decree for partition, the execution is not possible.

6.In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the ruling of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of (Bashiruddin Khwaja Mohiuddin v. Binraj Murlidhar Shop Malkapur by Partners and others)1, reported in 1986(3) Bom.C.R. 590.

7.So far as the nature of the decree passed on the basis of declaration made by the Court regarding the shares of the parties in a suit for partition is concerned, there cannot be two opinions with respect to the observations made by the Division Bench in the said matter (cited supra). The decree declaring the shares of the parties in a suit for partition is definitely a preliminary decree. If the properties where the share is declared, are other than the land, assessable to land revenue, then a final decree proceedings will have to be started with respect to other immovable properties by filling an application in the Civil Court. However, when there is such preliminary decree with respect to land, assessable to land revenue, all further proceedings are required to be taken before the Collector or any gazetted officer subordinate to him to whom the powers are delegated by the Collector, as per the provisions of section 54, read with O. XX, R. 18, C.P.C. When the matter goes before the Collector, then he has to pass the final decree by coming to the conclusion, how the land should be partitioned between the parties, and then he has to execute that decree by actually putting the parties in possession of the portions allotted to them. The Civil Court has no say in the matter as to how the land be partitioned between

Click Here to Read the rest of this document