A preliminary partition decree declares shares but does not confer exclusive possession before the final decree.

The petitioner and her sister obtained a preliminary decree in a partition suit concerning several properties, including the 48-cent property at issue.

The fourth respondent claimed through successive transfers from the petitioner’s father, who had alienated the property while the partition litigation was pending.

She was impleaded in the pending final-decree proceedings, in which an Advocate Commissioner had filed a report.

The petitioner sought police protection to fence the property, asserting a two-thirds share; the respondents claimed that the fourth respondent was in possession.

The final-decree proceedings remained pending.

1. Whether the preliminary decree entitled the petitioner to exclusive possession of, or to fence, the disputed property pending the final decree.

2. Whether either the petitioner or the fourth respondent could claim exclusive possession and seek police protection while the final-decree proceedings remained pending.

The Court applied the principles that a preliminary decree in a partition suit declares the parties’ shares but does not, by itself, crystallise their rights to specific portions of the property; those rights are settled through the final decree.

Pending final decree, the parties and persons claiming through them are treated as being in joint possession, and one co-sharer cannot exclude another from possession.

A purchaser pendente lite is bound by the outcome of the litigation and cannot claim exclusive possession before the final decree determines the parties’ rights.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

Because the preliminary decree declared shares but had not allotted specific portions, it did not establish the petitioner’s exclusive possession of the 48 cents or entitle her to fence a claimed 32-cent share.

Conversely, the fourth respondent, as a purchaser pendente lite, was bound by the suit’s outcome and could not claim exclusive possession before the final-decree court acted on her request for allotment.

Neither party therefore established a basis for exclusive possession warranting police protection.

It also requested the District Munsif, Chengalpattu, to dispose of the final-decree application within six months.

The order identifies that application as I.A. No. 799 of 2006, although the earlier case history refers to I.A. No. 779 of 2006.