The final decree court is bound by the findings granted in the preliminary decree, and statements made in criminal proceedings are not binding in civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the fair and decretal order dated 09.02.2010 in I.A.No.46 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.II) Gobichettipalayam.)

1. The present revision arises against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gobichettipalayam, in I.A.No.46 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2001, dated 09.02.2010.

2. The respondents 4 to 7 in I.A.No.46 of 2006 are the Civil Revision Petitioners. The suit in O.S.No.11 of 2001 was filed by the 1st respondent/minor Ramya Bharathi, represented by her mother and next friend Eswari. She sought for a decree for partition of the property on the ground that she is entitled to 1/4th share in the ancestral properties, which belong to the family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3.

3. The contest by the defendants 1 to 3 was that the property is not a joint family property, but belongs exclusively to the defendants. According to them, the plaintiff has no share in the same. The said suit was decreed on 10.05.2002.

4. Against the preliminary decree that was granted by the trial Court, a regular appeal had been presented by the defendants 1 to 3 before this Court in A.S.No.76 of 2002. When the appeal was taken up on 24.02.2005, the defendants 1 to 3 made a request to the Court that they will be permitted to withdraw the appeal. This Court was also pleased to grant permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.168 of 2000 (renumbered as O.S.No.11 of 2001) dated 10.05.2002 stood confirmed on 24.02.2005.

5. The petitioners herein had purchased the property on 14.07.2000. Unfortunately, for the civil revision petitioners, they neither impleaded themselves in the suit nor in the appeal. The suit having been presented on 06.07.2000, they are but lis pendens purchasers. The purchase by the civil revision petitioners, who have already premised are the third parties to the suit and lis pendens purchasers, was the entire 3/4th extent of the properties owned by the defendants 1 to 3.

6. Finding that their vendors had not supported them, the civil revision petitioners moved C.M.P.No.5597 of 2005 in A.S.No.76 of 2002 seeking for leave to file a petition to set aside the order of withdrawal of the appeal dated 24.02.2005. When the said application came up for disposal on 28.04.2005, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:

“Since the appeal had already been disposed of, except permitting the petitioner to work out his rights in appropriate forum, no further orders are necessary in this petition, accordingly, the petition is closed.”

Therefore, the attempt by the civil revision petitioners to reopen the order of dismissal attained finality.

7. Now turning to I.A.No.46 of 2006, the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the property and to submit a report so as to enable the Court to pass a final decree in O.S.No.11 of 2001. The said application was allowed on 09.02.2010. Challenging the same, the present revision has been presented by the respondents 4 to 7 in I.A.No.46 of 2006.

8. I heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the civil revision petitioners and Mr.S.Rameshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. I have carefully gone through the records.

9. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the partition suit, which had been presented by the plaintiff through her mother, is a collusive action, because after the suit had been decreed, (the mother and daughter) plaintiffs have rejoined with Ravichandramurthy, who is the contesting 1st defendant. Learned Senior Counsel will draw my attention to the deposition given by the mother in the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.8 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate''s Court,