A final decree court cannot reopen a preliminary decree while its validity is under appeal.

The petitioner, claiming to be a purchaser of suit-schedule property, challenged orders of the Final Decree Court rejecting applications in FDP No. 12/2008 and FDP No. 6/2020.

Both proceedings arose from a preliminary partition decree in O.S. No. 174/2001.

The petitioner contended that the preliminary decree was collusive.

She had separately challenged that decree in O.S. No. 42/2011; the suit was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed in R.A. No. 65/2012. Her second appeal, R.S.A. No. 323/2014, had been admitted. The final decree proceedings were stayed pending that appeal.

1. Whether a transferee of suit-schedule property may seek rejection of final decree proceedings on the ground that the preliminary decree is collusive

2. Whether the Final Decree Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s applications warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

Under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, final decree proceedings in a partition suit implement the rights and shares declared by the preliminary decree, including through division of the property by metes and bounds.

A preliminary decree remains operative unless set aside or modified by a competent court; its validity is not ordinarily open to reconsideration in final decree proceedings.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference absent illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.

The judgment cited no specific precedent.

The petitioner’s allegation of collusion challenged the validity of the preliminary decree, an issue already raised in her pending second appeal.

The Final Decree Court’s role was to give effect to the preliminary decree, not to reconsider its correctness or validity.

The pending appeal did not entitle the petitioner to obtain rejection of the final decree proceedings on the same ground.

Since those proceedings were already stayed and no illegality or infirmity was shown in the orders rejecting her applications, the Court found no basis for Article 227 intervention.

Both writ petitions were dismissed.

The petitioner remained at liberty to pursue her challenge in R.S.A. No. 323/2014, with all contentions in that appeal kept open and the appeal to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in these writ petitions.