The Allahabad High Court has recently referred two critical questions to a larger bench regarding the nature and appealability of a preliminary decree in a partition suit under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The referral arises due to conflicting judgments on whether such a decree is merely interlocutory or conclusively determines the substantive rights of parties.
Background of the Case
The case, Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State of U.P. and 25 Others, involves a partition suit filed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner challenged a preliminary decree passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi, which determined the shares of co-sharers in a disputed holding. The respondents contested the writ petition, arguing that an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code was the appropriate remedy, not a writ.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Rules Motorbike as 'Dangerous Weapon' Under IPC If Used to Intentionally Harm
The petitioner, however, relied on Section 209(f), which bars appeals against interim orders or decrees. This led to a debate on whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit is interim or final.
The court noted two conflicting precedents:
Amarjeet v. State of U.P. (2021): The High Court held that a preliminary decree is an interlocutory order and thus not appealable under Section 207 due to the bar under Section 209(f). The reasoning was that such a decree does not conclude the suit but merely declares shares, leaving room for further proceedings.
"A preliminary decree merely declares the rights and shares of the parties and leaves room for further inquiry... the suit continues until the final decree is passed."
Read also:- Supreme Court Warns Against Politicising Contempt Plea Against Mamata Banerjee
Manoj v. State of U.P. (2024): Contrary to Amarjeet, this judgment ruled that a preliminary decree conclusively determines shares and is appealable under Section 207. The court emphasized that the phrase "if the suit is decreed" in Rule 109(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 implies a final adjudication of rights before the decree is passed.
"The expression 'if the suit is decreed' manifests the legislature’s intent that rights are conclusively adjudicated before a preliminary decree is prepared."
Due to this conflict, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam referred the following questions to a larger bench:
Nature of Preliminary Decree: Whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit is an interlocutory order (interim measure) or a final decree conclusively deciding substantive rights to shares in the holding.
Appealability: Whether an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 lies against a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit under Section 116.
Read also:- CJI BR Gavai Rebukes Lawyer For Addressing Justice Yashwant Varma Without Judicial Courtesy
The larger bench’s decision will have significant ramifications:
For Litigants: Clarity on whether a preliminary decree can be challenged immediately or only after a final decree.
For Revenue Courts: Guidance on interpreting procedural rules under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Legal Precedent: Resolution of the conflict between Amarjeet and Manoj, ensuring uniformity in future cases.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State Of U.P. And 25 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41837 of 2024]