Interim possession of a defined portion cannot be granted before a preliminary decree in a partition suit.

The petitioner and respondent, brothers, were parties to a partition suit concerning two properties.

Before a preliminary decree was passed, the petitioner applied under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking permission to reside in or possess a portion of Item No. 1 until disposal of the suit.

The trial court rejected the application, holding that interim possession could not be granted before the parties’ rights were demarcated and that the petitioner’s remedy, if the respondent exclusively enjoyed the property, lay in seeking mesne profits or accounts.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain interim possession of a portion of the suit property before a preliminary decree in the partition suit

2. Whether the trial court’s rejection of the application warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

The application was made under Section 151 CPC, which concerns the court’s inherent powers, and the petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The judgment records the principle that, in a partition suit, the parties’ rights are determined through a preliminary decree and the property is thereafter demarcated; it does not identify or apply any specific precedent.

The requested relief concerned interim possession of immovable property, not preservation of money.

The High Court noted that the earlier direction requiring the petitioner to deposit funds received from the deceased father’s Demat account did not justify granting possession of part of the property.

As no preliminary decree had been passed, the trial court’s refusal to make a temporary division was consistent with the stated approach to partition proceedings; the petitioner’s possible remedy concerning the respondent’s enjoyment of the property was to seek mesne profits or accounts.

The High Court found no ground for supervisory interference.

It left the parties’ rights and contentions open and permitted the petitioner to raise his contentions before the trial court.