JUDGMENT :-This appeal has been filed by defendants 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 29 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chingleput, against the order passed in I. A. 73 of 1969 by the Subordinate Judge appointing a Commissioner for making enquiry regarding the quantum of mesne profits payable by defendants 1 to 3.

2. The plaintiff who is the respondent herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her l/6th share in the suit properties. A preliminary decree Was passed on 14-3-1962 declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a l/6th share in the suit properties. Clause 6 of the preliminary decree inter alia provided that the plaintiff's share in future mesne profits would be determined in the final decree proceedings. A final decree was passed on 28-2-1964. Clause 12 of the said decree provided that the question of mesne profits is left to be decided in a separate proceedings while the other matters provided under the preliminary decree were settled under the final decree.

3. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. to hold an enquiry in regard to mesne profits. This application was resisted by the defendants on the main ground that as the final decree had already been passed and the decree had become final in respect of all matters, the application for enquiry into mesne profits could not be maintained subsequent to the passing of the final decree. The contention of the defendants was negatived. Hence this appeal.

4. The same contention is reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellants before me. It is contended that after the preliminary decree was passed, which provided an enquiry into mesne profits, an enquiry should have been made and mesne profits ascertained before the final decree Was passed and such ascertainment of the mesne profits should have been incorporated in the final decree, and that as this was not done, the enquiry into mesne profits subsequent to the final decree is barred and, therefore, the application is not maintainable. This contention proceeds on the footing that the decree passed by the court on 28-2-1964 is a final decree, in the sense, that it has put an end to all the matters provided under the preliminary decree or the matters in controversy in the suit.

5. The question to be considered now is whether the decree passed by the Court on 28-2-1964 has conclusively determined the rights of the parties as provided under the preliminary decree to make the decree final and comolete. The definition of 'decree' is provided under Section 2, clause (2), C. P. Code. It is as follows:-

" 'decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 47 or Section 144, but shall not include-

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default."

The Explanation to Section 2 (2) is relevant for the present discussion and it is as follows:-

"A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final."

It is well established that there can be more than one preliminary decree and one final decree depending upon the facts of each case. If a particular controversy which is separable from the other controversies in a suit is conclusively determined in consonance with the preliminary decree, to that extent, a final decree may be passed; yet that final decree will be an incomplete final decree or partly final in the sense that the other controversies are left open or not conclusively determined.

6. In the decision in Kasi v. Ramanatha Chettiar, 1947-2 Mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document