The petitioner herein was the defendant No.1 in

F.D.P.No.5/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Pavagada (hereinafter referred to as 'Final Decree

Court' for short), challenging an order dated 01.02.2022,

by which, it altered the shares in view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA

SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS reported

in AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3717.

3

2.

The suit in O.S.No.47/2016 was filed by a

female heir for partition and separate possession. She

contended that the suit properties were joint family

ancestral properties. The trial Court after considering the

law as it existed as on the date of death of her father,

granted 1/8^th share in the suit schedule properties.

Following

this,

the

final

decree

proceedings

in

F.D.P.No.5/2019 was initiated. In the said final decree

proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application under Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-working the

shares to which the plaintiff was entitled in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

VINEETA SHARMA (referred supra). The Final Decree

Court allowed the application in view of the law declared

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA

SHARMA (referred supra).

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that once a preliminary decree is passed, then it is for the

plaintiff to challenge the said preliminary decree before the

4

Appellate Court and that the Final Decree Court has no

jurisdiction to alter the shares. He submitted that the

decree was granted on 09.04.2019 and therefore, it was

incumbent upon the plaintiff to file appropriate appeal.

4.

It is now well settled that the final decree

proceedings is a continuation of the original proceedings

and the Court does not loose seisin over the proceedings.

It is entitled to take note of the circumstances leading to

enhancement or reduction of the shares and pass

appropriate decree. This is also the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GANDURI

KOTESHWARAMMA

AND

ANOTHER

VS.

CHAKIRI

YANADI AND ANOTHER reported in 2011 AIR SCW

6163. In addition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of

VINEETA

SHARMA

(referred

supra)

was

also

considering the effect of the law declared on preliminary

decrees which are not yet finalized and held that the same

stood affected. In that view of the matter, there is no

error committed by the Final Decree Court in enhancing

5

the shares to which the plaintiff was entitled to. There is

no error warranting interference and hence, the petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-