AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3322 ::2003 AIR SCW 4717 ::(2004) 96 RevDec 456 ::(2003) 10 IndLD 632 ::(2004) 1 All RentCas 92 ::2003 (7) SCC 452 ::2003 (4) RecCivR 368 ::(2003) 7 Scale 430 ::2003 (53) All LR 461 ::2003 (4) Cal HN 180 ::2003 (4) CurCC 51 ::2004 (1) ICC 105 ::2003 (96) CutLT 749 ::2003 (4) MadLW 759 ::2004 (3) LandLR 235 ::2004 (1) UC 266 ::2003 (5) SLT 367 ::2003 (6) Supreme 662 ::(2003) 2 CgLJ 371 ::2003 (8) ACE 359 ::(2003) 6 AndhLD 110 ::(2003) 11 AllIndCas 588 (SC) ::2003 (10) SRJ 364 ::(2004) 6 JT 83 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 996 (3) Andh LT 570)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.2(2) Expln.— 'Decree' - Definition includes preliminary decree and final decree - There can be more than one preliminary/final decrees in a suit. (Para 9 10) (B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.2(2) Expln.— Compromise decree passed in partition suit - Whether final or only a preliminary decree - Plaintiff allotted properties shown in Schedule to compromise decree - Parties put in possession of their respective share of immovable property - Money decree passed in favour of plaintiff regarding property at Serial No. 6 in Schedule with direction to defendant to pay said amount within prescribed period - Parties mutually agreed that some properties be kept joint - Suit finally disposed of in terms of compromise decree - It is final decree - Application by plaintiff after 13 years to reopen partition and ask for final decree proceedings - Not tenable - Rather is an attempt to wriggle out of partition decree in view of change in value of properties due to passage of time - Open to plaintiff to file fresh suit of partition with respect to properties which were kept joint. 1996 (3) Andh LT 570, Reversed. (Para 15 16 18) ....