AZIZABI Vs. FATIMA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that fal)s for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal directed against the order in I.A. No. 2245/72 in O.S No. 21/67 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali is:

(2.) The question therefore is whether such a pelition is maintainable. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines a decree as under :

(3.) Mr. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, however, contends that there is no prohibition against passing of any number of preliminary decrees and final decrees. He urges that no restriction is placed upon the power of the Court to pass a final decree for ascertainment of mesne profits after a final decree directing the division of the properties and allotment of shares is made. These contentions require two points to be considered. 1. Whether the Court may make more than one final decree in t partition action? and 2. If more than one final decree could be made, whether the final decree for profits could be made even on an application filed after the final decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties is made? It it now we11 settled that in certain classes of suits, where preliminary and fina decrees are envisaged. for example suits for dissolution of partnership and accounts, and suits for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share of the properties and profits arising therefrom, more than one preliminary decree may be passed. In Kasi v. Ramnathan Chettiar (1) Patanjali Sastry J., dealing with a case of dissolution of partnership and accounts, expressed thui :