The final decree in partition suits must adhere strictly to the preliminary decree, prohibiting issues that could nullify established shares.

For Petitioners : M/s.Yuvanthika for R.Manickavel For Respondents : Mr.N.Sivaprakash – R1 RR2 to 5 NRN ORDER Three suits for partition have been filed three decades ago. The suits being O.S.No.88 of 1990, O.S.No.120 of 1990 and O.S.No.2 of 1991. O.S.No.120 of 1990 came to be decreed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu on 30.09.2004. O.S.No.88 of 1990 and O.S.No.2 of 1991 came to be dismissed. Three appeals before the learned Principal District Judge in Chengalpattu. They were numbered as A.S.No.59 of 2005, A.S.No.60 of 2005 and A.S.No.166 of 2005 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2 of 1991, O.S.No.120 of 1990 and O.S.No.88 of 1990 respectively. Being appeals arising out of the common judgment, the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu clubbed the appeals together and heard them. He dismissed all the appeals on 30.09.2010. Two second appeals were preferred to this Court in S.A.No.813 of 2011 and S.A.No.814 of 2011. The said second appeals were dismissed by this Court on 05.08.2011.

2.As the preliminary decree had attained a finality, the plaintiffs in O.S.No120 of 1990 filed an application for passing of final decree before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge in I.A.No.56 of 2015. The final decree Court ordered notice to all the respondents. The 1^st respondent herein remained exparte. Thereafter, she filed an application in I.A.No.284 of 2018 to set aside the exparte order dated 16.07.2018. Notice was ordered in this application. The plaintiffs filed a detailed counter pointing out to the Court that the suit had been decreed and the preliminary decree had attained a finality and no share had been allotted to the petitioner and therefore her application is vexatious.

3.The learned Principal Subordinate Judge by way of the impugned order allowed the application under Order IX Rule 7 filed under final decree application. The reason that the learned Judge has given to allow the application is that she proposes to decide whether the 1^st respondent herein / petitioner therein is a tresspasser and was allowed to reside in the suit property by the 7^th defendant. Challenging the same the plaintiffs are on Revision before me.

4. I heard Ms.Yuanthika for Mr.R.Manickavel and Mr.N.Sivaprakash for the 1^st respondent.

5.The plea of the 1^st respondent is that the exparte order has to be set aside as she wants to participate in the final decree proceedings. The preliminary decree has not allotted any share to the 1^st respondent herein, for her to plead an allotment in her favour of a portion of the suit property, or for purpose of owelty. The preliminary decree has been passed alloting 1/3^rd share to each of the plaintiffs. The final decree Court cannot exceed the preliminary decree that has been passed. The final decree Court is bound by the preliminary decree. I fail to understand as to how the final decree Court can decide whether the 1^st respondent is a tresspasser or a permissive occupant. Such an issue is absolutely alien to the final decree proceedings. The preliminary decree has attained finality and the buck stops there. All that the final decree Court does is to divide the property on the basis of the preliminary decree already passed, and allot a particular share to each of the petitioners. The final decree Court cannot frame an issue which would in effect nullify the preliminary decree. The exercise conducted by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge amounts to overreaching the order of the second appellate Court which has held that the 1^st respondent has no share in the property.

6.In the light of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Pe