The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no limitation for filing a final decree application in a partition suit, and the matters decided by a preliminary decree are final and conclusive.

The civil revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.381 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1354/1995 before the Lower Court praying for passing of final decree by means of appointing an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 13 CPC. On 211. 1951, a preliminary decree was passed between the parties. In the said interlocutory application, the respondent/plaintiff/petitioner has prayed for his separate share of 1/4 in the application properties to be allotted to him.

2. A.S.No.174 of 1960 filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.146/1958 by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruchirappalli, was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 19.09.1963. In I.A.No.1354/1995 filed before the lower Court by the respondent/plaintiff/petitioner, it is specifically stated that it is gross lie to allot that as though A.S.No.174/1960 on the file of this Court was compromised by allotting certain properties to him and the same was said to have been delivered on payment of Rs.300/- to him etc.

3. It is relevant to point out that the respondent/plaintiff/petitioner in his affidavit in I.A.No.1354/1995 has categorically averred that he has not engaged any advocate at High Court nor he has endorsed any compromise to be recorded by the High Court and that the fact remains that after the preliminary decree, the properties were not divided by metes and bounds as per terms of the preliminary decree and in filing final decree application, there is no time limit prescribed and since item Nos.10 and 11 of B Schedule have already been sold, no relief is prayed for against those items and therefore, prayed for dividing the application mentioned properties into four shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of 1/4 share.

.4. In the counter filed to the I.A.No.1354/1995, it is specifically averred that after the passing of the decree by the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli and during the pendancy of the appeal in High Court, a panchayat was held between the parties Ponnusamy Reddiar, Sadhasivam of Thirani, Ramasami Reddiar, Village Karnam of Thirani acted as panchayatdars and that Sadhasivam was the Village Munsif and that the panchayat was held in Chithirai, 1960 and it was decided by the panchayatdars that the plaintiff must be given one acre of land in S.F.206/2 and cash of Rs.300/-towards means profit and that panchayat decision was accepted by the parties and accordingly, the plaintiff was given exclusive possession of one acre in S.F.206/2 of Thirani village and and later a sum of Rs.300/- was paid on 02.07.1960 and for the said payment a receipt was given by the plaintiff which was attested by the panchayatdars, viz., Ponnusamy Reddiar, Sadhasivam and Ramasami and in pursuance of the panchayat and acceptance thereof, the petitioner/plaintiff was given exclusive possession of one acre of land and originally Survey No.206/2 consists of one acre 98 cents and after the panchayat, to have separate patta in the name of the plaintiff was subdivided in U.D.R. Proceedings as 206/2B patta was given and he was paying the kist and was in exclusive possession of the property etc.

5. It was further alleged that in regard to the remaining lands, patta stood in the name of Ramasami, the first petitioner/first respondent before the Lower Court and he was paying kist and by mutual arrangement a partition was effected between the parties which was accepted by them and the same came into force and therefore the respondent/plaintiff/petitioner was not entitled to seek the relief of passing of final decree, since the partition was already effected.

6. The delay of 32 years in filing the final decree application is raised as one of the grounds in this civil revision petition by the revision petitioners/defendants/respondents.

7. It is the case of the revision petitioners that by mutual consent, the p