ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dharmapuri dated 08.03.2018 in IA.No. 442 of 2010 in OS.No. 1 of 1989.

Prayer: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated 08.03.2018 in IA.No. 442 of 2010 in OS.No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dharmapuri.

1. Both the civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the final decree in respect of 'C' schedule property in OS.No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dharmapuri.

2. The petitioners in both the civil revision petitions are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff and the deceased first defendant. The suit was filed for partition in respect of the suit properties. In the said suit, preliminary decree was passed and on the strength of the preliminary decree, one of the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant filed application in IA.No. 442 of 2010 for passing final decree in respect of 'C' schedule property alone and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions have been filed.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRP.No. 3211 of 2018 submitted that final decree cannot be passed for 'C' schedule property alone. Any number of preliminary decree can be passed and insofar as final decree, only one final decree can be passed, that too for all the properties. The final decree cannot be passed for some of the schedule mentioned properties alone.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in CRP.No. 2245 of 2019 submitted that in respect of other properties, some of the properties were already sold out and as such, final decree cannot be passed in respect of 'C' schedule property alone. It is not permissible under law. He further submitted that the first respondent admitted that the other properties contained in the preliminary decree are not in the possession of the joint family members and they have been lost irretrievably and that she has given up all her rights over those properties totally. Therefore, the rights of the parties to the preliminary decree have to be worked out again afresh taking into account the loss of the other properties. Therefore, final decree cannot be passed only in respect of 'C' schedule property alone. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Phoolchand and Another vs. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470, wherein it is held that there is nothing prohibited in the Code of Civil Procedure from passing more than one preliminary decree if some parties die and shares of other parties are thereby augmented. Therefore, it would be convenient to the court and advantageous to the parties, specially in partition suits, to have disputed rights finally settled and specification of shares in the preliminary decree varied before a final decree is prepared. If this is done, there is a clear determination of the rights of parties to the suit on the question in dispute and we see no difficulty in holding that in such cases there is a decree deciding these disputed rights; if so, there is no reason why a second preliminary decree correcting the shares in a partition suit cannot be passed by the court.

4.1 He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 788, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that a preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and