This revision arises out of proceedings in a suit Original Suit No. 78 of 1955, Subordinate Judge’s Court, Cuddalore, for partition of joint family properties, the plaintiff being the petitioner herein. On the 7th of August, 1959. a compromise decree was passed in the suit. It purported to be final decree. Under clause (1) of the decree, besides the portion of a house marked in the plan attached to the compromise, the lands specified in schedule-A to the compromise were allotted absolutely to the plaintiff for his share and interest in the joint family properties. Under clause (3) the marked portion of premises in the plan showing the old terraced house, site, etc., and the B schedule lands with wells, etc. were allotted absolutely to defendants 1 to 3 for their share and interest in the joint family properties. There are provisions in the compromise regarding the crops on the lands, trees, engines, jewels, life-stock, etc. It is needless to refer to the details of these terms which are all embodied in the decree. There is a provision in the compromise that the claims of the respective parties have been settled by the compromise and that the properties to the plaintiff must be delivered within one month from the date of the compromise by defendants 1 to 3. Similarly within the same period the properties allotted to defendants 1 to 3 must be delivered to them by the plaintiff. It is further provided that if not so delivered, both the parties might treat the compromise itself as the final decree and apply for execution and obtain delivery through Court.

The application, the order in which has given rise to the revision was made by defendants 1 to 3 praying for the appointment of a commissioner to divide the properties according to the decree, dated 7th August, 1959, treating it as a preliminary decree and praying for a final decree. The plaintiff and defendants 4 to 9 raised objections to the maintainability of the application inter alia on the ground that the decree, dated 7th August, 1959, was itself a final decree and that there has been a final division and allotment of the properties. It was stated in the objections filed, that the compromise clearly specified the properties to be taken by the respective parties and that, in the circumstances, the application for appointment of a commissioner for division of the properties afresh and for a final decree was not maintainable. A plea was’ also raised that the applicants had applied to the executing Court for delivery of possession impliedly taking the stand that there has been a final allotment and a final decree and they were, therefore, preculded from claiming a fresh final decree.

The learned Subordinate Judge noticed that among the various items of properties set out in the schedules A and B of the compromise decree, in some of the items the parties are allotted portions by reference only to extents for example, in item (3), Nanja Survey No. 8/1, the first defendant had been given 1 acre and 58 cents out of the total extent of 3 acres and 98 cents. The compromise does not show in which portions of the survey fields the extents respectively allotted are to be found. The shares in the fields are not indentified by boundaries or delineated by sketches or plans. Observing that evidently the parties had not applied their minds to this aspect of the matter when they prayed for a final decree in terms of the compromise, and in the view that in the circumstances, justice would be rendered by the appointment of a commissioner to divide the properties which require division and passing a fresh final decree in respect of those items alone, the learned Subordinate Judge ordered the application. The rights of the parties or their respective extents in the several items are not in dispute, but as it stands, if execution is necessary, the Court will not be able to execute the decree and give separate possession of their respective shares to the partices in respect of those items whe