Preliminary decree cannot mandate reimbursement for property improvements without proper enquiry during final decree proceedings.

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction (O.S.No.33/2015) claiming a one-third share in the suit property inherited from his mother, Saradhammal.

The Respondents (defendants) admitted the relationship but the first respondent contended she had spent Rs. 4.00 lakhs on renovating the building and claimed entitlement to a larger share.

The Trial Court (Additional District Judge, FTC, Vellore) passed a preliminary decree recognizing the Appellant’s one-third share but conditioned the delivery of that share upon the Appellant paying Rs. 1,33,000/- (one-third of the renovation costs) to the first respondent.

The Appellant challenged this specific monetary condition in the High Court.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s direction to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 1,33,000/- to the first defendant at the preliminary decree stage was valid and sustainable?

The Court applied the procedural principles governing partition suits, distinguishing between the "preliminary decree" (which declares the shares of the parties) and the "final decree proceedings" (where specific equities, accounts, and improvements are determined).

The Court underscored that while Section 2 of the Partition Act and relevant provisions of the CPC allow for adjustments for improvements made by a co-sharer, such determinations must be based on "proper enquiry" and evidence regarding the validity and actual expenditure incurred.

The Court observed that while the defendants produced a salary certificate, a detailed estimate for renovation, and a diary of expenses, the Trial Court had not conducted a rigorous enquiry into the validity of these documents or the exact manner in which expenses were incurred.

The High Court reasoned that determining the value of improvements and the liability of other co-sharers to contribute should not be concluded summarily at the preliminary decree stage without thorough evidence.

Instead, such financial adjustments and the determination of "equities" regarding property development are more appropriately handled during the final decree proceedings, where a commissioner is typically appointed and a detailed account can be taken.

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree specifically regarding the direction to pay Rs. 1,33,000/-.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the final decree proceedings and conduct a separate, detailed enquiry into the expenses met by the parties for property development.

The Appeal Suit was disposed of with no costs.