The final decree proceeding in a partition suit is a stage in continuation of the suit and all disputes of the parties are intended to be settled once for all in the final decree proceeding.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE point for consideration in this civil revision is whether lands purchased by co-sharers from other co-sharers should he allotted to their share while passing the final decree in a suit for partition.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the facts, it is necessary to produce the admitted genealogy. The plaintiffs obtained a preliminary decree for partition in which the shares of different branches were defined. They filed a petition to make the decree final and stated therein that defendant No. 4, representing a branch having died, her grand-daughter Smt. Chudamani Jena (defendant No. 3 of the final decree petition) sold 1. 13 2/3 acres of land out of khata Nos. 94 and 102 of mouzakumbhari in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant No. 2 by virtue of a sale deed dt. 14-11-1979 and so the aforesaid extent of land should be allotted to their share while passing the final decree.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 5 to 10 in their counter stated that Brahma, father-in-law of defendant No. 4 had sold his share of the ancestral land in favour of Rama, father of defendants 5, 6 and 7 and husband of defendant No. 8 and defendants 9 and 10 by virtue of a sale deed dt. 20-6-1932 and so the share of Brahma should be allotted to them in addition to their usual defined shares in the final decree. They disputed that Smt. Chudamani Jena is related to their family and so she had no interest to alienate any land of the share of Brahma in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2.

( 4 ) FROM the aforesaid averments it appears that the share of Brahma in the joint family property is now in dispute. Whereas, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 claim the share on the strength of a sale deed said to have been executed on 14-11-1979 by Smt. Chudamani Jena, defendants 5 to 10 have stated their claim in respect thereof by virtue of a sale deed dt. 20-6-1932. Confronted with this position, learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore refused to entertain the claims on the ground that in the final decree proceeding a new case set up by the parties cannot be entertained. Therefore, he refused to allocate the share of the branch of Brahma in the joint family property in favour of the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 acquired the share of Brahma on 14-11-1979 after the preliminary decree was passed. Defendants 5 to 10, however, had acquired the share of Brahma on 20-6-1932. The sale deeds were not produced in the final decree proceeding and so they are not before this Court. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain what specific property was purchased by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 and defendants 5 to 10. On verification of the sale deeds it may be possible to know whether the same property alienated earlier on 20-6-1932 in favour of defendants 5 to 10 was subsequently alienated in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 on 14-11-1979 or out of the share of Brahma, the sale deeds covered different parcels of land. The aliens' share on partition has to be determined with reference to the alienating coparceners' share on the date of alienation. The share has to be worked out by taking the properties existing on the date of partition. The alienee of a specific property or of the undivided interest of a coparcener in such property has an equitable right to have that property or his alienee share in that property as the case be assigned to him if it could be done without injustice to the other coparceners. But there may be equities between the coparceners or liabilities attaching to the alienor's share which may render it inequitable or impracticable to do so. It is, therefore, necessary to discuss the scope of a final decree proceeding under O. 20, R. 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('code' for short ). In AIR 1961 Orissa 140, Jagannath Samantra v. Sudarsan Das, Barman J. examined the same and held as follows :-"the point, accordingly, has to be decided on the basic principles, on which preliminary and final decrees are