High Court Of Orissa
P. K. Mohanty, J.
GHANASHYAM MARTHA - Appellant
Versus
BRUNDABAN PRADHAN - Respondent
Civil Revn. 13 Of 1976
Decided On : 11/30/1976
PARTITION SUIT - PRELIMINARY DECREE - ADJUSTMENT OF ALIENATED LANDS - ORDER DIRECTING ADJUSTMENT - WHETHER DECREE OR ORDER - APPEALABILITY - CIVIL REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
In a partition suit, the court passed a preliminary decree directing partition of the properties into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to each of the parties. During the final decree proceedings, one of the parties filed a petition praying for a direction to the Commissioner to adjust to the share of the petitioner 1.97 acres of lands alienated by him to third parties prior to the suit. The court below, after considering the evidence, directed the Commissioner to adjust those properties to the shares of the petitioner and the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order amounted to an adjudication of the substantive rights of the parties and it will therefore amount to a preliminary decree. The court further held that a partition suit must be deemed to be pending till a final decree is actually passed and that any number of preliminary decrees can be passed therein.
Issues: Whether the impugned order is an 'order' within the meaning of Section 2 (14), C. P. C. or a 'decree' within the meaning of Section 2 (2), C. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: * A decree is the formal expression of an adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. * A preliminary decree is one which does not completely dispose of the suit but leaves some further proceedings to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. * A partition suit is pending till a final decree is actually passed and any number of preliminary decrees can be passed therein. * The court can give appropriate directions regarding all or any of the matters to be considered before an equitable final partition can be effected, even after the passing of the preliminary decree. * An order directing adjustment of alienated lands in a partition suit is a preliminary decree and is appealable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petition holding that the impugned order was a preliminary decree and hence appealable. The court directed the learned Subordinate Judge to draw up a formal decree in terms of his order dated 30-9-75.
P. K. MOHANTY, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER and opposite party No. 1 are brothers, the former being the elder and opposite party No. 2 is their mother. Opposite party No. 1 filed O. S. No. 51 of 1970 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh against the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 for partition of 13. 52 acres of land and 3 preliminary decree was passed directing partition of the properties into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to each of the parties. During the final decree proceedings the opposite party No. 1 filed a petition on 5-9-73 praying for a direction to the Commissioner to adjust to the share of the petitioner 1. 97 acres of lands alienated by him to third parties prior to the suit. The petitioner and opposite party No. 2 filed counters contending, inter alia, that the opposite party No. 1 had also transferred 0. 36 acre of lands to one Arakhri Naik prior to the institution of the suit and that those lands should be adjusted to his share. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the opposite party No. 1 came to hold thai 0. 50 acre of land out of plot No. 102 under Khata No. 234 and 0. 23 acre of land appertaining to plot No. 730 under khata No. 235 of village Krishnaprasad which were transferred by defendant No. 1 (petitioner) prior to the suit should be adjusted towards his share. He also held that 0. 06 acre of land appertaining to plot No. 1405. 0. 11 acre of land appertaining to plot No. 892 and 0. 19 acre of land appertaining to plot No. 904/1462 i. e. in all, 0. 36 acre transferred by the plaintiff prior to the suit should be adjusted to his share. Accordingly he directed the Commissioner that while effecting the partition he should adjust those properties to the shares of the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision.
( 2 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's petition after passing of the preliminary decree, specially when the plaintiff did not make any prayer for such a relief in the plaint. Opposite party No. 1 on the other hand contended that the order sought to be revised is a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the C. P. Code and it would therefore be appealable as a decree and the Civil Revision is not maintainable.
( 3 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is an 'order' within the meaning of Section 2 (14 ). C. P. C. or a 'decree' within the
meaning of Section 2 (2 ). C. P. C.
( 4 ) SECTION 2 (14), C. P. C. defines 'order' as the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree. 'decree' is defined in Section 2 (2), C. P. C. as the formal expression of an adjudication which 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. The Explanation to Section 2 (2)makes it clear that the decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of and it is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.
( 5 ) THERE was a serious dispute between the parties regarding allotment of the alienated lands. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the defendant No. 1 made the alienation in his capacity as the karta of the joint family and as such it was binding on all the members of the joint family. The plaintiff's contention was that the alienations made by defendant No. 1 were for his own benefit and not for the benefit of the joint family. The court below on a consideration of the evidence on record decided that the alienations made by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were for their own benefits and accordingly directed that the lands alienated should be adjusted to the shares of the alienors in my o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.