MUTHANGI AYYANNA Vs. MUTHANGI JAGGARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by one of the defendants in a partition suit. It has come up before us after certification of the case under the unamended provisions of Article 133 as the decree of the Trial Court was modified, so that the requirements of Order 45 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code had been fulfilled. Learned Counsel for the appellant (defendant No. 4 transposed on 5-11-51 as plaintiff No. 4) has confined his argument to liability of Rs. 42550/10/1 which resulted after the accounts which the appellant had to render on behalf of his branch of the family. The pedigree of the family is as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_241_1_1977Image1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 12/12/1942, in the following terms:

(3.) . This appeal, coming up before us from the final decree, raises the question whether the preliminary decree, confines, as the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant No. 4 submits, accounting to the claims made by and against individual parties mentioned in the preliminary decree. He urges that it cannot be extended to all parties, including the defendant No. 4, if the terms of the preliminary decree are binding. The contention is based on the well recognised proposition that a final decree cannot amend or go behind the preliminary decree on a matter determined by the preliminary decree.