Alienees must be heard on equitable allotment in final partition decree proceedings.

The dispute arose from a partition suit in which a preliminary decree was passed in 2010.

An appeal against it was dismissed for default in 2014.

The petitioners said they learned of the dismissal only in August 2022; their subsequent attempts to challenge the preliminary decree, including a condone-delay application, were unsuccessful, and a revision against the latter dismissal was dismissed on 27 February 2026.

The preliminary decree therefore stood final, declaring equal shares.

The Advocate Commissioner reported that the property could be divided into equal eastern and western halves of approximately 2,956 sq. ft. each.

The petitioners challenged the trial court’s handling of the final-decree proceedings, contending that they had not received the opportunity contemplated by the earlier order; respondents 1 and 2 disputed their subsisting interest because of subsequent alienations.

Whether the trial court erred by proceeding with the final decree without giving the petitioners an opportunity to seek equity in the allotment, as contemplated by the High Court’s earlier order.

Whether, despite the preliminary decree having become final and the petitioners’ disputed subsisting interest, the final decree should be set aside and the allotment reconsidered on the existing Commissioner’s report.

The petition was brought under Section 115 CPC.

The Court applied the principle that, once the preliminary decree declaring the parties’ shares had become final, the final-decree proceedings were concerned with allotting the property consistently with those shares.

It also applied the earlier order in C.R.P. Nos. 387 and 388 of 2025, which permitted the purchasers to seek equitable allotment of the share belonging to their vendors.

The Court limited that opportunity to allotment: the petitioners could not claim equity based on the superstructure they had erected, and any building on the half allotted to respondents 1 and 2 would pass with that land.

The Court found force in the argument that the earlier order had afforded the purchasers an opportunity to seek equitable allotment, which the trial court had not fairly provided.

It nevertheless recognised that the petitioners had alienated the property and that their continuing interest was uncertain; the preliminary decree was also final, and the Commissioner had already proposed an equal division.

To balance the limited opportunity recognised in the earlier order against the age of the litigation, the Court directed a hearing on the existing report only, without a fresh commission or reinspection, and barred any claim to equity based on the superstructure.

The petitioners were to be heard on the existing Commissioner’s report so the trial court could determine which half should be allotted to the petitioners/alienees and which to respondents 1 and 2.

No fresh Commissioner or reinspection was permitted; the petitioners could not claim equity based on the superstructure, and any building on the respondents’ allotted half would go with that land.

The final-decree proceedings were to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the High Court’s order.

No costs were ordered.