In a partition suit, the court may take into consideration all subsequent events from time to time and make enquiries under Order 20, Rule 18, CPC in respect of all other properties to which the suit decree may relate.

JUDGMENT :

L. Rath, J. - These two revisions have been preferred respectively by mutually contesting Defendants, against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur including certain properties in the final decree proceedings in T.S. No. 16 1985 while refusing to so include some other properties. The short facts leading to the revisions are then one Ratnakar Behera had obtained a decree in Money Suit No. 67 of 1952 against the sons of one Para me swat Sahu, namely, Trilochan, Jujhistir and Kishore and having put the decree into execution vide Execution Case No. 6/54 purchased the 1/4th undivided interest of Parameswar in some items of properties and took joint possession of the same along with others through Court on 12-11-1962. Subsequently, Title Suit (sic) 3/62 was filed by Dibakar Sahu, the original Defendant No. 5 in the present suit on the premises that there had been a previous partition in the family of late Niranjan Sahu who had four sons, Jogeswar, Parameswar, Khageswar and Baleswar in which Jogeswar had been given 1/4th share in the joint family property and the said 1/4th share of Jogeswar be partitioned amongst the parties to that suit. In the suit, excepting the branch of Jogeswar the other members of the family representing the branches of Parameswar, Khageswar and Baleswar were not made parties. The suit was decreed and final decree was passed but Execution Case No. 13/79 filed by Dibakar to execute the decree was dismissed as the present suit, a comprehensive one, had been filed by the legal heirs of Ratnakar impleading all the members of the joint family as parties. The suit was filed by the heirs of Ratnakar seeking partition of their undivided 1/4th share which had been purchased by Ratnakar. In the sale in execution of the money decree. The suit was preliminarily decreed on 29-4-1967. After the preliminary decree was passed, Bihari, the original Petitioner in C.R. No. 257183 (sic) who was also the son of Defendant No. 4, purchased the 1/4th interest of late Ratnakar and was substituted as the sole Plaintiff in the final decree proceeding. He filed a petition to include certain other properties in the final decree proceeding claiming the same to be joint family properties and claimed 1/4th share therein, but the learned Court passed the impugned order only permitting inclusion of the properties in loved in the earlier suit, i.e. T.S. 3/62 saying that those properties were the joint family properties and hence must be included in the final decree proceeding but rejected the prayer regarding inclusion of same other properties holding the same to be the self-acquired properties, not liable for partition. Admittedly no enquiry was held to determine the character of the property as self-acquired or not. As against such order while C.R. No. 257/83 was filed by Bihari (since dead) against the refusal to include the properties sought to be included, C.R. No. 421/83 has been preferred by Defendants 10 and 11 representing the branch of late Jogeswar against inclusion of the properties involved in T.S. 3/62 in the final decree proceeding.

2. It is the submission of Mr. Mohanty in C.R. 421/83 that since admittedly Ratnakar had purchased not the entire 1/4th share of Parameswar in the joint family property but only 1/4th share of specific properties as per the sale certificate issued in his favour in Execution Case N.D. 6/54, Bihari as the alter ego of Ratnakar cannot be permitted to enrage the scope of his interest by included other properties in the final, decree proceedings since Ratnakar could not have any interest in the slid properties and hence his interest must be confined to the property which was sold to him by virtue of Court sale. Though on the face of it the submission appease to be attractive, yet it has no force since Bihari was not only representing the interest of Ratnakar having purchased the same, but was also independently a co-sharer rechristening the branch of Baleswar being the son of his Lakhpati,