SURJIT KAUR Vs. RANI MANCHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 4. 1. 1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) Ropar. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the objections of the petitioner against the application filed by the respondent for final decree of partition. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) MR . Mittal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised only one point against the impugned order to the effect that in the preliminary decree only the rights and shares of the respondent have been declared and the rights and shares of the petitioners have not been declared. He, therefore, contended that the final decree of partition could not be passed without modification in the preliminary decree declaring the rights and shares of the remaining parties. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Sarbeswar Panda and other v. Bibhabasu Panda, A. I. R. 1977 Cal. 288. (ii) S. V. Muthu and Ors. v. Veerammal and Anr. , A. I. R. 1981 Madras 307. (iii) Md. Makbul Hussain and Anr. v. Mst. Zubeda Khatoon and Ors. , A. I. R. 1990 Guwahati 33.

(3.) I have beard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 5. It is not disputed that in this case a preliminary decree of partition was passed on 20. 12. 1989.