In Brief
In a partition suit, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary decree determining shares, once passed and finalized, cannot be reopened or varied during final decree proceedings merely because a new claimant seeks impleadment. Nima Kaur claimed a share based on a settlement deed dated 30.12.1978, but was not party to the original suit. The High Court had directed the trial court to modify the preliminary decree to accommodate her claim. The Court reversed this, holding that Section 97 of the CPC precludes re-agitation of matters in the preliminary decree during final decree proceedings. The only exception is subsequent events (like deaths) occurring after the preliminary decree. Nima Kaur's remedy was to file a separate suit, not seek reopening of the concluded preliminary decree.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.