THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.462 of 2009 DATED: 26.08.2009 Between: Chakiri Yanadi. .. Appellant. And Ganduri Koteswaramma And others. .. Respondents. JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 1987 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Ongole. He filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The 1st defendant was the father, 2nd defendant is the brother and defendants 3 and 4 are the sisters of the appellant. The prayer in the suit was to divide the plaint ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties into three equal shares and allotment of one share each to the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. ‘B’ Schedule property was left by the mother of the plaintiff. As regards that property, the prayer was to divide the same into five equal shares and allotment of one share each to plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died, therefore, the extent of shares got altered, in the sense that the share, which was to be allotted to the 1st defendant, was divided into four equal parts and one each was to be allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. A preliminary decree, as prayed for, was passed by the trial Court on 19.08.1999 and the same has become final. The defendants 3 and 4 i.e., the sisters of the plaintiff filed I.A.No.564 of 2007 before the trial Court under Order XX Rule 18 read with 151 of C.P.C., with a prayer to pass a preliminary decree in their favour, vis-à-vis the properties in ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ properties also. They placed reliance upon the amendment caused to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The appellant opposed the application. Through its order dated 15.06.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this appeal. Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court has become final and there was absolutely no basis or occasion for the trial Court to re-allot the shares, as long as preliminary decree remains intact. He submits that a change in law does not entitle the respondents herein to seek modification of the allotment. Sri Sanisetti Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that his clients sought for the benefit under the amended provision of law and no exception can be taken in order under appeal. The preliminary decree passed by the trial Court on 19.03.1999 has become final, inasmuch as no appeal was preferred against the same. Virtually, the prayer of the plaintiff was granted. Properties in schedule ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ were divided into three shares and the one in schedule ‘B’ was directed to be divided into five shares. The distinction as to the shares was on account of the fact that the schedule ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ are the coparcenery properties, whereas the one in schedule ‘B’ was left by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. There does not appear to be any opposition for the prayer made by the plaintiff, except that the fraction of shares has undergone change on account of death of the 1st defendant. Even as regards this, the parties were almost in agreement. The final decree is yet to be passed in the suit. In the recent past, the Parliament amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short ‘the Act’), according status of coparceners to the female members of the family also. Basing their claim on amended Section 6 of the Act, the respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants 3 and 4 filed I.A.No.564 of 2007 under Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C., a provision, which applies only to preparation of final decree. It hardly needs an emphasis that a final decree is always required to be inconformity with the preliminary decree. If any party wants alteration or change of preliminary decree, the only course open to him or her is to file an appeal or to seek other remedies vis-à-vis the preliminary decree. As long as the preliminary decree stands, the allotment of shares cannot be in a manner different from what is ordained in it. On this short ground, the order under appeal deserves to be set aside. The Appeal Suit is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 26.08.2009 v v