G) (^ ^ 'fn'^Q Emft^- TE^ •^i'Tirrair, fWrT?rg-7 § 5. Ti. jm W^ ^TTO /2-® /2005 Sf^rfT^f ^TftTgT^t ^T^-I, livislon Bench WT^rm ff'Mt ftTcTTT^O f^"^TTrTO" ?[t?ft 317^ 50 HT7T, f?TcTTH£r ?rrf^^ ^'^TR^rrr grf r~50, ^pOTT fi3[pTT iiTWtT ?TWT -ft^g- JTaTqTqtTiOT '^T^t II O <t .\o^y ^ ,<'? I- TTCTri'-T ?T'Nt ^ fTfTT r^rf?T I^^TTTPT ?rTsft ...4?>i /^¥ ^ .\$^ ^* >kV' ^ ^7 J'mTqT^tW ^fHgTcfl- jp?Tf^-2 3i7^ 40 ffTPT, ^ f'Tq^ft at-TR^HT qTf :T^T~50 iTTWT f^TT GfT^'ftT qfqT ?ti»^ ?T?T ^sm ^m^^ •?-T^r fq^cr ^pf ^m^T ^T 13 1, q?<hXT g- 'i f^pTT "^YT^T 2- e^cft fq«izr%3ql=r Ht^ft rfcT rTtSTZTPT ?ft^ •..3fT^- 45 FiT^T, ftrTT Tyisf!? ft^H-TtI n't-?ft -f^rnr^- % ^*? ^ csU ?r?ftq-TTT,fEf(TT?rg-T, yrTT-96 -^rg-gn' ^^T ?ft^"rn- ^ 3i^cr ym srcrM . , - <ft ^ ^ /' ^- ^ HIGBLCOIJRTOF_CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No.120/2005 APPELLANT Defesadant No. 1 Ramakant Soni RESPOM)EHTB PSaisstiif VBRSUS Ramratan Soni and another Judgment Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on \\ /10/2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge vy^: S i.. I ^^^t^ 1^.s cy COURT OF AT F.A. No.120/2005 APP^LLANT Defeadaizt No.l RBSPONDBNTS P!a£at!fy Raoiakaiit Soni. Versus Ramratao. Soni aiid aiiotlier. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE S.B. : jipN»BLE N.K. AGARWAL^J :- Shri Shree Kuniar Agrawal, Senior Counsel witli Shri Anaiid Gupta for the appellaiit, Shri Vishiiu Koshta for respondeut No. 1 None for respondent No.2, JUDGMENT (Delivered on {| . 10.201 1) This is defendaiifs Fu'st Appeal tiled under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'tlie C.P.C,') directed against tlie JudgBieiit aad decree dated 29th MaTch, 2005 passed by tlie 3rd Aclditional District Judge (F.T.C.), Jaajgir in Civil Suit No.58- A/2004. 2. Plamtttf / respondeut No.l - Rainrataii Soni, appellmit / clefendant No.l - Raraakaiit Soni aiid respoudent/defendaiit No/2 ~ Snit. Vijaylakshmi Soni are brotliers and sister. Ramarataa Soui i,e, plaiatiff mstituted a suit for partition ofjomt family propeity i.e, hoiise and moveable property described m Schedule of fhe plahit claimmg 1/2 share in it, Accordmg to the plamtlfi, suit property is coparcenery property belongitig to plahitiff aad defendaut No, 1 (appeUaiit hereiii). His sister Smt. Vijay Lalcshmi Soni, aft.er maniage, is residiag iti her raatrioionial honie, ^'3?^\ ^S:^Sb. 8 "^SSSS^ | ^y ^ 1 %. '^^/ '':'%;-^^^- "-22.' AppeUaat, by filing written statenient, denied partition tater alia on tlie ground: plaintiff reUnquished liis share ia tiie suit property ui lieu of Rs.20,000/- cash aad soine jewehy goods given by tlie appeUaat to tlie plaiatiff. 3. The tdal Court fraaied the followiiig issues: ch^lch ^T? g^T 1 4 ^TT clt^y^d f^5^ -qrr^ i^ nRro'i7ur ^ 15^rft 'q^H ti ^TT ?T€t ^R!SC-I ^ 4R^!te-2 ^ ^fbta' ^R TWFT ^ ^H^pft 'E^ WT^T ^T 1/2 fl^PRT W[rT w^ wi sritei^t ti ^FIT 'S[T^, HJ^fO^O-1 ^ 3Tq^ ^c^FT ^ 1^^ ^ ^jT ^ ^RPFT cR- ^HM ^ 20.000/-^T^ '^tR^ WT-IT ^^ ^g fen" ti ^^l^dl ^'^R '3PT 4, The tiial Court, on a close scnituiy of tlie evidence led, decreed the suit holdiiig each party has one-fhird share ia tlie suit property findmg iiiter aiia: appeUant could not prove, plamtiir reMnquished his share in tlie suit property after receiviag Rs,20,000/- aiid some jewehy shop articles from fhe appeUaat 5. Shri Shree Kumai' Agrawal, learaed Senior Advocate witli Shri Anaiid Gupta for tlie appellant would subniit: the trial Court, wiliiout appreciatmg tlie evidence recorded ia tiie case, in. its proper perspective decreed the suit m appellmifs favour. In the altemative, it was contended fhat uistead of passiiig preliinin.ary r-r ^r' "y^' %y!K-% 1 ^ ^ s^ decree under Order 20 Rule 18 of fhe C.P.C. flie tdal Court went wrong iii passiag fmal decree aad the decree impugned deserves to be suitabie niodttied, 6. Shri Vishnu Koshta, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,l, on tlie otlier hand, supportecl Uie judgment aiid decree aiid subiaitted; tiie trial Court, after appreciatiag fhe entire niaterial aad evidence placed on record, has passed fhe decree, which needs no iaterference. 7. I have heard leaiTied counsel for the parties and perased fh.e judgnient and decree inipugued includuig record of the trial Court, 8. AppeUaat - Raraakant Soni, io. his stateinent para - 9, has categoricaUy adniitted, legal heit's of Chitaraia have iolieiited Uie siiit property arid he is iii its occiipadon as Maaager of fhe family. in view of above admission, it was for fhe appeUant to prove, plaiiitjff reUiiquished his share by receivtag Rs,20,000/- ao.d sonie jewehy shop articles froin him, ni which he utterly failed. Therefore, so lar as judginent aiid decree unpugned is conceraed, fhe same has been passed on due appreciation of tlie evidence led and I do not ihid aay iiitiraiity iti the approach of fhe tdal Court iii graating decree of partition holdiag each part}/r is haviag equal share in tlie suit propem^, 9, The core question, tiierefore, aiises for determiaatiou of fhis Court is whefher trial Court was justiiied in uot passiug ihe decree in. accordaace witli the provisions contamed iii tiie order 20 Rule 18 (2) ofthe C.P.C. ^'siv3^:%^. y^^ '^ sy 10. Provision ofOrderXX Rule 18 oftlie C,P.C. reads as under: "Order XX Riile 18 ofthe C.P.C, Decree iu siiit for partition of property or separate possession of a share thereiii. - Where the court passes a decree for fhe partition of property orfor fh.e separate possession ofa share therein., tlien,- (1) tf aad ia so far as fh.e decree relates to ao. estate assessed to tlie paynient of revenue to ftie Govemnient, fhe decree shall declare tiie rights of the several parties uiterested io. ihe property, but shaU direct such partition or separation to be Biade by tihLe CoUector, or aay gazetted subordiaate of fhe CoUector, deputed by him ia this behatf, ui accordaace with such declaration an.d wifh tiie provisioiis of Sectiou 54; (2) tt aad ia so far as such decree relates to aay otlier miniovable property or to inovable property, the Court niay, if fhe partition or separation caiinot be convenienUy niade wifhout further iuquir}7, pass a preIimLUiary decree declarmg fhe rights of tlie several parties, iaterested ia the propert}^ aad giviag such furfher directious as niay be required." 11, A pretimiuiary decree declares fhe rights or shares of paities to the partition. Once fhe shai'es have beeii declared aiid a furtlier iaquinir still reniaias to be done for actuaUy partitioniag the property and placnig tlie parties ia separate possession of divided property tliexi such in.quirvr shall be held aad pui'suaiit to the result of lurfher iaquiry a luial decree shatl be passed. A preMiauia?y decree is one which declares ftie rights aiid liabiLities of fhe parties leaviiig tlie actual result to be worked out ui lurtlier proceedirLgs. Then, as a resiUt of the further niquuies conducted pursuaiit to the preliiniiiary decree tlie rights of the parties are jSinaUy determiaed aiid a decree is passed ia accordaiice witli such detei-muiation, which is, tiie linal decree. The distiiiction betaveen preIiBimary aiid •:^^.>-. •^••3'^ &^ fiiial decree is tih.is: a preUiniiiaiy decree inerely declares the rights aiid shares of tlie pai'ties aiid leaves rooni for sonie furfher iaquiiy to be held aiid conducted pursuaat to fhe directions niade in tlie prelimiiiaiy decree which iaquiiy havnig been conducted an.cl fhe rights of the paities fnially deteiimned a decree iacorporatiiig such deterniiiiation needs to be drawn up which is fhe final decree. 12. A bare penisal oftlie decree impugned would reveal: it merely declai'es the rights aiid Mabilities, leavnig tiie actual result to be worked out ui furfher proceediags, tliat is, for tlie purpose of partitionnig suit property by metes and bounds betv\7een fhe parties, 13, In view of fhe above discussion, I aia of fhe cousidered opiaiou, ttie decree impugned, ia fact, has been passed under Order 20 Rule 18 (2) of ttie C.P.C. Therefore, the decree passed by tiie tiial Court is held to be a preliiainar)^ decree. Thus, fhe appeal is disposed ofwitii the direction to fhe tdal Court to proceed in th.e niatter effectiiig partition of fhe suit propert)7 betaveen fhe parties aiid tiiereafter, pass a fmal decree. 14. No order as to costs, 15, A decree be drawn accordiagly. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge