The main legal point established in the judgment is that a second preliminary decree can be passed in partition suits, particularly when circumstances such as the death of parties necessitate a change in shares specified in the preliminary decree. The court also clarified that the suit is not over until the final decree is passed, and the court has jurisdiction to decide all disputes that may arise after the preliminary decree, especially in partition suits due to the deaths of some of the parties.

K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.

1. The point for consideration in this revision is whether a supplementary preliminary decree can be passed in a suit for partition.

2. First respondent filed a suit for partition as O. S.325/1975 before Munsiff's Court, Chittur for partition and separate possession of her share in plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The properties originally belonged to 2nd respondent and his brother Narayana Vadhyar. Petitioners and 1st respondent are the legal representatives of Narayana Vadhyar. His wife Annamma Amma, who was the 5th defendant in the suit, died subsequent to the order in I. A. 1572/1985 from which this revision arises. Petitioners and 1st respondent are her legal heirs. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit directing partition and separate possession of the share of plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties. The shares of the defendants were not determined, nor was any provision made in the decree for allotment, of their shares. During the pendency of the petition for final decree petitioners moved that court by means of I. A. 1572/1985 for allotting their shares separately. That petition was allowed originally. On appeal by 3rd respondent before District Court, Palghat the petition was remanded for fresh consideration. After remand the petition was dismissed by the Munsiff for the reason that the advocate for petitioner could not point out any provision giving jurisdiction to the Trial Court to pass an additional preliminary decree. That order was appealed against before District Court, Palghat. The appeal also was dismissed with the observation that revision petitioners were not entitled to ask for a second preliminary decree. That order is under challenge in this revision.

3. It is urged on behalf of petitioners that there is no bar in passing more than one preliminary decree in a partition suit whereas counsel for respondents would submit that the Code of Civil Procedure provides only for one preliminary decree and one final decree. O.20 R.18 empowers the court to pass a preliminary decree in a suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein. That rule as substituted in this State reads:

"Where the court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share therein, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property and giving such further directions as may be required."

In a suit for partition the court should not merely give a decree for plaintiffs' share, but should also consider the shares of all other cosharers. The equities claimed by the respective parties are also to be worked out and provided for in the preliminary decree. Can any sharer claim a supplemental preliminary decree either by way of amendment of the original preliminary decree or by way of an additional preliminary decree is the precise question that arises for consideration in this revision.

4. A partition suit comes to an end only when a final decree is passed. Until then the partition suit has to be deemed to be pending. As early as 1924 the Privy Council in Lachmi Narayan v. Balmkund (AIR 1924 PC 198) has held that it is open to any party to a suit to whose interest it is that further proceedings be taken, to initiate supplementary proceedings after decree. In the ordinary course it is the plaintiff who moves. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court had occasion to consider this question in Kasi v. Ramanathan Chettiar (1947) II MLJ 523). That was a suit for taking of partnership accounts. The court has adjudicated on the substantive rights of the parties with regard to the several matters in controversy in the suit. Some of the issues were reserved for consideration at the time of passing the final decree. Those, issues were considered after the commissioner submitted his report. An order was passed direc