LAKKISETTI PAKKIRAYYA Vs. PADALA NAVANEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question posed by this appeal is whether Order 21, Rule 16 C. P. C. is applicable to the assignment of a preliminary decree.

(2.) Umamaheswaram, J., before whom this appeal came up for hearing originally, ret erred it to a Bench, as he felt that there was a conflict of opinion between Ramanadhan v. Ramachandra, AIR 1926 Mad 1129 and Dhanapala Chettiar v. Krishna Chettiar, 1955-1 Mad LJ 72: ((S) AIR 1955 Mad 165) which followed an earlier Bench decision in Venkatarama Ayyar v. Ramaswami Aiyer, ILK 44 Mad 539 : (AIR 1921 Mad 56).

(3.) The facts culminating in the appeal are shortly these: One Padala Seshamma instituted O. S. No. 226 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Nellore, for a declaration of her half share in the estate of her deceased husband, Padala Narasimhulu Chetty, for an account of the profits as detailed in schedule A(1), for recovery of her half share in the share described in schedule B and for her half share in the granite quarry described in schedules E and C and for costs.3a. A preliminary decree was passed declaring her right to a share in those properties.