Madras High Court· 31 July 2026

Can a supplementary final decree be sought after a final decree in a partition suit has been passed on a compromise and acted upon?

Nagarajan v. Susheela

CRP No.1015 of 2026 · CRP No.1015 of 2026
Coram: Justice P.B.Balaji

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Order I Rule 10(2) Code of Civil…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. A preliminary decree is merely declaratory in nature and the shares it declares are subject to the allotments made in the final decree proceedings; the preliminary decree here stood merged with the final decree passed on compromise. Once that final decree was acted upon and attained finality the suit stood terminated, and a later application claiming a share inadvertently left out is unknown to law and practice and not maintainable.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order I, Rule 10(2) — Constitution of India — Article 227 — Suit for partition — Preliminary decree and final decree — Supplementary final decree — Impleadment — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Suit for partition — Preliminary decree merged with final decree — Held: A preliminary decree is merely declaratory in nature; the shares it declares are always subject to the allotments made in the final decree proceedings. Where the final decree is based on a compromise, the preliminary decree stands merged with it. (¶8, 10) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Final decree acted upon — Supplementary final decree unknown to law — Held further: Once a final decree is passed, acted upon and has attained finality, the suit stands terminated. A subsequent application for a supplementary final decree, claiming a share inadvertently left out, is unknown to law and practice and not maintainable. (¶9, 10) Constitution of India — Article 227 — Impleadment in an application not maintainable — Held further: Where the application in which impleadment is ordered is itself not maintainable, there is no purpose in allowing the impleadment. The extraordinary powers under Article 227 may be invoked to strike off that application. Civil revision petition allowed. (¶12, 13)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 9This Court in Aburvakounder’s case (referred herein supra), has held that after the final decree has been drawn up, signed and engrossed in Stamp Paper of requisite value, the suit stands terminated and after passing of the final decree, it is not open to any party to apply to the Court to vary, modify or allot share on account of even change in law. The ratio laid down in the said decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

Paragraph 10There is no bar for any number of preliminary decrees to be passed in a suit for partition. A preliminary decree only declares the rights and shares of the parties to the lis and the actual division and allotment of specific portions is only in the final decree proceedings, which alone is capable of execution. A preliminary decree is merely declaratory in nature. It is not the case of the first respondent that the final decree was not passed. Having bargained for specific items of the property and entered into a compromise which culminated in a final decree being passed even in the year 1994, it is not open to the first respondent to knock at the doors of the Court once again, claiming that he was entitled to a share in S.Nos.463/1 and 463/4 in the preliminary decree and therefore, a supplementary final decree should be passed. The preliminary decree passed in the instant case stood merged with the final decree based on compromise, where admittedly, the first respondent has not been allotted any share or extent in S.Nos.463/1 and 463/4. In such view of the matter, the very application for passing of a supplementary final decree, as rightly contended by Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel, is unknown to law and practice and the Application itself was clearly not maintainable.

Acts & Sections

Order I Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Art.227 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Nagarajan v. Susheela — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Should a party be impleaded under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in an application that is itself not maintainable?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections