Present; Schneider J. and Jayewardene A.J.

JAYASEKERA v. PERERA et al.

32-D. C. Colombo, 8,485.

Partition-Land referred to in final decree different to land referred to in plaint, and in respect of which parties proved title-Decree " given as hereinbefore provided "-Is decree binding on persons not parties to decree ?-Partition Ordinance, 1863.

Where the land referred to in the plaint in a partition action and the land in respect of which the parties proved their title and obtained an interlocutory decree was not the land depicted in the survey plan referred to in the final decree, the final decree cannot be regarded as a decree " given as hereinbefore provided " in section 9 of the Partition Ordinance, 1863, and does not bind any person except parties to that decree. Jayewardene v. Weeresekere [1(1917) 4 C. W. R. 406.] followed. 

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

E. J. Samarawickreme (with him Charles de Silva), for appellants. H. V. Perera (with him Weerasuriya) for respondent.

August 5, 1924. Jayewardene A.J.-

If the facts alleged in this case are true, they disclose a novel abuse of the Partition Ordinance. The defendants