PARTITION OF ESTATE and SEPARATION OF SHARE

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF COURSE TITLED

C.P.C. and Law of Limitation FOR COMPLETION OF B.A.,LL.B. (HONS.) IN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2021-22.

Submitted to - Submitted by –
Dr. MEETA MOHINI MANI RAJ
GUEST FACULTY OF LAW Roll no. - 2124
5TH semester, B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

AUGUST, 2021

Chanakya National Law University

Nyaya Nagar, Mithapur, Patna (Bihar)

1|Page
 DECLARATION
I, Mani Raj, hereby declare that the work reported in B.A. LL.B (Hons.) project
report titled “Partition of estate and Separation of share” submitted at Chanakya
National Law University, Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under
the supervision of Dr. Meeta Mohini. I have not submitted this work from elsewhere
and I am fully responsible for the contents of my project report.

MANI RAJ
ROLL NO. – 2124
B.A., LLB. (Hons.)
5th Semester

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher takes this opportunity to express her profound gratitude and deep
regards to her guide DR. MEETA MOHINI, for his exemplary guidance,
monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of this project. The
blessing, help and guidance given by him time to time shall carry the researcher a
long way in the journey of life on which the researcher is about to embark.
The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and
assistance from many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along
the completion of this project. Last, but not the least, I am thankful to all the members
of my family, friends and teachers without whose assistance and encouragements I
could not have completed my thesis.

MANI RAJ

3|Page
 Table of Contents
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 6
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................................... 6
 HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................................................................. 6
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 6
2. Laws governing Partition ...................................................................................................................... 7
3. Partition and Separation of share .......................................................................................................... 9
4. DECREES ........................................................................................................................................... 10
5. Share of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the government ............................ 11
5.1. Share of a portion of an undivided estate is not a share of the estate............................................... 11
3.2. Division of revenue as well as division of land. .............................................................................. 12
3.3. Process of partition of estate assessed to payment of revenue ......................................................... 13
6. Partition by Collector .............................................................................................................................. 14
7. Issue of Commission to make partition in other cases ............................................................................ 16
7.1. Final decree proceedings in partition ............................................................................................... 17
7.2. Court can direct sale instead of partitioning .................................................................................... 17
7.3. No limitation applicable to a final decree ........................................................................................ 18
8. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 20

4|Page
 1. INTRODUCTION

Partition is the division of jointly held properties, along with the associated rights, into different
portions and delivery thereof to the respective persons. In partition the joint ownership comes to
an end and the respective parties are vested with the eligible shares.

The partition in another sense means to give a person his monetary value of the share in the joint
properties. A valid partition converts joint title of the parties into exclusive title of the
shareholders. Similarly it converts joint possession of the co-owners into exclusive possession of
each shareholder.

Partition in other words is a re-distribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights, among co-

owners/coparceners, resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly held by them, into
different lots or portions and delivery thereof to the respective shareholders. The effect of such
division is that the joint ownership is terminated and the respective shares vest in them in
severalty. In partition the co-ownership is converted into individual ownership.

A partition of property can only be done among those who have a share or interest in it. A person
having no share or interest in the property cannot be a party to the partition.

Partition is done for separation of shares among the co-sharers of the property for individual
possession of each share.

5|Page
  AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The researcher tends to emphasize on the study of –
1. To analyse the legal provisions relating to partition of estate.
2. To understand the difference between declaring the share and effecting a partition.

 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Whether Civil Court can effect partition of an estate assessed to payment of land revenue?
2. What if the collector denies for partition of estate after preliminary decree?
3. Whether this section applies to a decree for possession of a share of a portion of an
undivided estate?

 HYPOTHESIS

The researcher presumes that in the case of the partition and separate possession of agricultural
lands assessed to revenue, the Civil Court only declares the share of the parties and the authority
concern has to effect the partition or division by metes and bounds, as envisaged by Section 54 of
CPC.

 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher will be relying on doctrinal method of research to complete the project and the
researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the project.

This study has been designed keeping in view the objectives, scope as well as research questions
of the study. The methodology of research differs according to the subject and problem under
study.

6|Page
 2. Laws governing Partition

Two major laws governing partition suits are the Partition Act, 1893 and the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The important provisions of CPC which are relevant to partition of
property are Section 54, Order 20 Rule 18, and Order 26 Rule 13 & 14. The court issue
commission to make partition under Order 26 Rule 13 & 14 of the CPC.

Section 54 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Partition of estate or separation of share"

Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to
the Government, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the
estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazetted subordinate of
the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being
in force relating to the partition, or the separate possession of shares, of such estates.

State amendments-

Karnataka.-
For Section 54, the following Section shall be substituted, namely.-

"54. Partition of estate or separation of share.-Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided
estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, or for the separate possession of a
share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share of such an estate
shall be made by the Court in accordance with the law if any, for the time being in force relating
to the partition or the separate possession of shares, and if necessary on the report of a revenue
officer, not below the rank of Tahsildar or such other person as the Court may appoint as
commissioner in that behalf ”.

[Vide Karnataka Act 36 of 1998, sec. 2.]

Order XX, Rule 18 CPC
Decree in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein.

7|Page
 Where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of
a share therein, then,-

1. if and in so far as the decree relates to an estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the
Government, the decree shall declare the rights of the several parties interested in the
property, but shall direct such partition or separation to be made by the Collector, or any
gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with
such declaration and with the provisions of section 54;

2. if and in so far as such decree relates to any other immovable property or to movable
property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be conveniently made without
further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the right of the several parties
interested in the property and giving such further directions as may be required.

Order XXVI, Rule 13 CPC

Commission to make partition of immovable property.

Where a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, the Court may, in any case not
provided for by section 54, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit to make the
partition or separation according to the rights as declared in such decree.

Order XXVI, Rule 14 CPC

Procedure of Commissioner.

1. The Commissioner shall, after such inquiry as may be necessary, divide the property into
as many shares as may be directed by the order under which the commission was issued,
and shall allot such shares to the parties, and may, if authorised thereto by the said order,
award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalizing the value of the shares.

2. The commissioner shall then prepare and sign a report or the Commissioners (where the
commission was issued to more than one person and they cannot agree) shall prepare and
sign separate reports appointing the share of each party and distinguishing each share (if
so directed by the said order) by metes and bounds. Such report or reports shall be annexed

8|Page
 to the commission and transmitted to the Court; and the Court, after hearing any objections
which the parties may make to the report or reports, shall confirm, vary or set aside the
same.
3. Where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance
with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the Court sets aside the report or reports
it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit.

3. Partition and Separation of share

Partition in other words is a re-distribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights, among co-
owners/coparceners, resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly held by them, into
different lots or portions and delivery thereof to the respective shareholders. The effect of such
division is that the joint ownership is terminated and the respective shares vest in them in severalty.
In partition the co-ownership is converted into individual ownership. Partition is done for
separation of shares among the co-sharers of the property for individual possession of each share.

The term separation of shares refers to a division where only one or only a few among several co-
owners get separated, and others continue to hold the remaining property jointly without division
by metes and bounds.

Separation of share is a partial partition. When all the co-owners get separated, it amounts to
partition in its full swing.

For example, where four brothers owning a property divide it among themselves by metes and
bounds, it is a partition. But if one brother wants to get his share separated and other three brothers
continue to remain in joint ownership, there is only a separation of the share of one brother.

9|Page
 4. DECREES

In a suit for partition, there are normally two decrees:

(i) a preliminary decree; and
(ii) a final decree.

There might be a preliminary decree or even more than one preliminary decree, which would
determine the share of the party, but which would not divide the properties deliverable to the co-
sharer. Another stage is that of passing of final decree after inquiry is held, as per the directions
contained in the preliminary decree. The shares of the party are determined first at the stage of
preliminary decree, and the actual partition is effected as per the final decree.

When the parties to a suit filed a compromise petition with the plan partitioning their respective
shares by metes and bounds, no further inquiry is needed unless it is found to be not genuine. In
such a case passing a preliminary decree is not necessary and the court can directly pass a final
decree in terms of the compromise.

Generally speaking, a final decree cannot amend or go behind the preliminary decree on a matter
decided by the preliminary decree.

However, where some of the parties after the passing of the preliminary decree give up certain
rights in favour of one of the parties, the effect of such giving up should be given while passing
the final decree.

Any order passed between the preliminary and the final decree is an interlocutory order although
it may finally decide the rights of the parties so far as the trial court is concerned.

It is submitted that such an order has the effect of revising the preliminary decree. The principle
that the suit for partition does not come to an end with the passing of the preliminary decree but
that it continues upto the stage of the final decree is prepared, is well established. It is also well
established that in such suits more than one preliminary decree can be passed. It is further well

10 | P a g e
established that the court should, as far as maybe, avoid multiplicity of suits by compelling the
party to go in for fresh suits with respect to the property in question.

The High Court of Madras has held that where parties, after the preliminary decree has been
passed, arrive at a compromise, the court can give effect to such a compromise by giving fresh
directions in the form of a fresh preliminary decree.

5. Share of an undivided estate assessed to the payment

of revenue to the government

5.1. Share of a portion of an undivided estate is not a share of the estate.

The section contemplates is an entire undivided estate and not merely a part of it. 1 A share of an
estate is not equivalent to a share of a portion of an estate ; when the decree relates to the separate
possession of a share of a portion, that decree does not fall within the terms of the section.2 The
section applies only to a case where the decree comprehends the partition of the whole of the estate
paying revenue to Government. A decree for possession of a share of a portion of an undivided
estate is not a decree for possession of a share of an undivided estate in any sense.3

Separate possession of a share of an undivided estate refer to the case of a man whose right is to
the possession of an aliquot portion or share of the whole estate considered as one. In such a case,
the partition is made by the collector, as it is the duty of the collector to see that the proper share
of the revenue is put upon the particular land or share of land.4

This section does not bar the jurisdiction of a civil court to effect a partition of a revenue paying
estate where no separate allotment of the revenue is asked for, and this applies also to
proceedings before the arbitrators.5

1
K V SRINIVASATHATHACHAR VERSUS NARAVALUR SRINIVASATHATHACHAR LNIND 1932 MAD
180
2
Moulvi Abdul Razak v. Sreenath Ghose (1930) I.L.R. 58
3
Jogodishury Debea v. Kailash Chundra Lahiry (1897) I.L.R. 24 Cal. 725 (F.B.)
4
AIR 1933 Mad 259.
5
Tikaram v. Hansraj , AIR 1954 Nag 241.

11 | P a g e
A person on whom any interest has devolved on account of transfer during the pendency of any
suit, or a proceeding can participate in the execution proceedings even though his name may not
have been shown in the decree, preliminary or final. The collector may proceed to make
allotment of properties in an equitable manner instead of rejecting his claim for such equitable
partition on the ground that he has no locus standi . A transferee from a party of a property which
is the subject matter of partition, can exercise all the rights of the transferor. Since a party can
ask for an equitable partition, a transferee from him can also do so.6

3.2. Division of revenue as well as division of land.

If a decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to
government, the section requires that the partition should be carried out by the collector. In a case
decided by a full bench of the High Court of Calcutta, there was a dictum to the effect that the
section only applies to a decree which directs distribution of revenue as well as a division of land.7

There is, however, nothing in the section which so limits its operation. In Abdul Razak v. Shreenath
Ghosh ,8Chief Justice Rankin said:

“It is idle to say that it is open to the plaintiff to insist that it be carried out by a commissioner
under the civil court merely because he has not asked for partition of the revenue. Whether he has
asked for partition of the revenue or not, if he has a right to the partition of an undivided estate,
his right is to a complete partition and it is certainly the right of any other party to object to an
incomplete partition which would leave his interest at the mercy of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff
makes default in paying his share.”

It has been held by the Nagpur High Court that a civil court is not competent to effect partition of
revenue paying property if the parties to the suit had not specifically asked for separation of the
liability of each of them, as regards payment of land revenue, but if the collector refuses to make

6
Khemchand Shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil , (1983) 1 SCC 18.
7
Jogadeshwari v. Kailash Chandra , (1879) 24 Cal 725 (FB)
8
AIR 1931 Cal 93: (1931) 58 Cal 122

12 | P a g e
a partition of the revenue paying property, the civil court can do so.9

The section does not apply to the partition of a mouza which is part of a revenue paying estate.10
In such a case, the object of the suit is not to have the parent estate divided into several separate
estates, but only to divide the lands of the mouza among persons who are jointly interested in
them.11

3.3. Process of partition of estate assessed to payment of revenue

In regard to estates assessed to payment of revenue to the government (agricultural land), the court
is required to pass only one decree declaring the rights of several parties interested in the suit
property with a direction to the Collector (or his subordinate) to effect actual partition or separation
in accordance with the declaration made by the court in regard to the shares of various parties and
deliver the respective portions to them, in accordance with Section 54 of CPC. If the Collector
takes action in the decree appropriately, the matter will not come back to the court and the court
will not have to interfere in the partition, except attending any complaint of an affected third
party. While making the partition the Collector is bound by declaration of the rights of the parties
in the preliminary decree. But the Court has no power to fetter the discretion of the Collector
conferred under the law. However in regard to any issue on which the Collector is not competent
to decide, the Civil Court will have the power to dispose of. If the Collector disregards the terms
of the decree, the Court is entitled to refer the case back to the Collector to re-partition the property.
The Collector must actually divide the estate in the manner he thinks best keeping in mind the
nature of the land as revenue paying entity and the stipulations of the decree.
The object of this provision is twofold:

firstly, the revenue authorities are more conversant and better equipped to deal with such matters
than a civil court and

secondly, the interest of the government in regard to the revenue paying estate would be better

9
Sewakram v. Chunnilal , AIR 1951 Nag 359
10
Debi Singh v. Sheo Lall Singh , (1889) 16 Cal 203
11
Abdul Razak v. Shreenath Ghosh , AIR 1931 Cal 93

13 | P a g e
safeguarded by the Collector than by the civil court.

6. Partition by Collector

In a suit for partition, once the court passes the decree declaring shares of the parties in an
undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the government and orders division and
separate possession of such estate in accordance with the shares so declared, then the court is
enjoined to direct such partition or separation be effected by the collector or any Gazetted Officer
subordinate to collector deputed by him in that behalf.

Further, in order to give meaningful effect to such declaration and direction issued in terms of
s 54 read with O 20, r 18(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court is further enjoined to send
the relevant papers to the concerned collector or Gazetted Officer. Once the papers are transmitted
to the revenue officer, the court passing the decree for partition under O 20, r 18(1) of the Code of
Civil Procedure becomes functus officio in relation to the decree for partition passed by it and all
further proceedings for the execution of such decree are to be carried out by the concerned revenue
officer.

The civil court is not the executing court for the purpose of execution of the decree for partition of
the estate which is subject to the assessment for payment of revenue to the government. Being so,
the question of approaching the civil court under s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with
grievance regarding non-compliance of such decree or acts in contravention thereof or in violation
of law by the revenue officer in the course of execution of such decree does not arise at all.

Certainly, the provisions of O 21 would not be attracted in such cases as the execution of a decree
is not by the civil court. Being so, neither the provisions of s 47 nor those of O 21 of the Code of
Civil Procedure can be of any help in such cases.

Further, the matters pertaining to the execution of such decrees cannot be dealt with under the
exercise of inherent powers under s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Undoubtedly, therefore,

14 | P a g e
it can be said that the grievance relating to refusal of the revenue officer to execute the decree and
therefore, direction for the execution to be carried out in terms of the decree, i.e. , as per the
declaration of shares under O 20, r 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be entertained by the
civil court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to pass order under s 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for compliance of the said declaration, i.e. , for execution of the decree in accordance
with the terms thereof.

Therefore, in cases of contravention of provisions of law or transgression of law or non-

enforceability of the decree for partition on account of events occurring subsequent to the passing
of such decrees or in relation to the similar such grievances, the limited control which can be
exercised by the civil courts can be only by way of an independent suit. The bar for suit under s
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be applicable only in cases where the question can be
determined by the court executing the decree.

Once it is clear that the civil court is not the court executing the decree for partition of the estate
which is subject to the assessment for payment of revenue to the government, the bar provided
under s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an independent suit by the parties to the decree
cannot come in the way of the party approaching the court with such suit regarding the grievance
in relation of the execution of the partition decree.

Section 54 does not talk about a final decree. All that is required of a civil court in a case for
partition of an undivided estate assessed to payment of land revenue of government or for the
separate possession of a share in such an estate is to pass a preliminary decree and declare the
rights of the parties and give direction for such partition or separation to be made by the
collector. Thereafter, the execution is to be effected by the collector. The civil court, after
passing such a preliminary decree for partition, becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction
to act in any manner thereafter so as to pass a final decree or deliver possession to a party in
accordance with such decree.12

While making the partition the Collector is bound by declaration of the rights of the parties in the

12
Bhagwan Singh v. Babu Shiv Prasad , AIR 1974 MP 12

15 | P a g e
preliminary decree. But the Court has no power to fetter the discretion of the Collector conferred
under the law.

However, in regard to any issue on which the Collector is not competent to decide, the Civil
Court will have the power to dispose of. If the Collector disregards the terms of the decree, the
Court is entitled to refer the case back to the Collector to re-partition the property. The Collector
must actually divide the estate in the manner he thinks best keeping in mind the nature of the
land as revenue paying entity and the stipulations of the decree.

7. Issue of Commission to make partition in other cases

In cases of immoveable property other than the above mentioned (see Order 20 Rule 18(2)) where
the court passes a preliminary decree for partition, the Court may issue a commission, under Order
26 Rules 13 and 14, to a person (usually an advocate along with a survey official) to physically
examine various aspects and conditions of the property to be divided and make partition or
separation of property according to the rights declared by the court in the preliminary decree.

The Commissioner will, after necessary inquiry, physically examine and divide the property into
required number of shares and allot such shares to the parties. The commissioner shall, if so
authorised in the court order, award such amount of money to be paid to the parties for the purpose
of equalising the value of the shares. The division by metes and bounds is a ministerial or
administrative function requiring physical inspection, measurement, calculation and consideration
of various possibilities of division.

The commissioner will then prepare a report apportioning each share by metes and bounds in a
distinguishing manner and send it to the court. If the commission consist of more than one person
and they cannot agree the commissioners can send separate reports to the court.

16 | P a g e
7.1. Final decree proceedings in partition

On receipt of the report of the commission and hearing objections thereto the court confirms, varies
or sets aside what is apportioned in the report and passes a final decree whereby the relief of
separating the property by metes and bounds is granted in its entirety leaving nothing else to be
done. The decree will be the final one when the court completely disposes of the suit wherein no
further adjudication remains.

In the final decree, the court declares separation of shares by metes and bounds, if possible, or
takes other measures for the parties to get the proceeds on sale of the property thereof.

7.2. Court can direct sale instead of partitioning

In a suit for partition, if it appears to the court that a division of the property cannot reasonably or
conveniently be made, and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be
more beneficial to the shareholders, the court may, on the request of any of such shareholders
interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the
property and a distribution of the proceeds.

The court can proceed for sale only on the request of a party or parties. This can be done under
Section 2 of the Partition Act. The request from the shareholders for sale of property does not have
to be in the nature of a formal prayer but if the words employed simply denote it, that itself is
enough. If the request thus made is on behalf of a person under disability the court has enough
discretion to see whether the request is for the benefit of the person under disability or not (See
The Partition Act, 1893 Section 5). A request of a co-owner essentially means he is ready to
convert his share into money.

However the court has enough discretion in formulating a suitable method for arriving at a just
and fair division of property, which is beneficial to all the shareholders, based on the facts of the
matter.

17 | P a g e
When a party asks for and the court directs a sale of the property on a request by a party and any
other shareholder seeks the court’s permission to buy the share, the court shall order for a valuation
of the share/shares and sell the property to the shareholder so requested at the price the court may
think fit based on the valuation. When two or more share holders come forward to buy the share
the court should consider the higher offer.

When such a request is there it is obligatory on the part of the court to offer to sell the property to
the intending shareholder without opting for a different course of action, normally. When no
shareholder comes forward to buy the property, the court should proceed for public sale of the
property.

In any exceptional case wherein a co-owner alone has the financial capacity for purchase the shares
and he offers a meagre price leading to patent injustice, the court has enough authority to exercise
its inherent powers to sell the property in public auction.

An order of sale by the court can be done either through public auction, under Section 2 of the
Partition Act or by bidding process within the shareholders, under Section 3 of the Act. The right
of a co-sharer to purchase a property accrues on the date the co-sharer requests the court to sell the
property under Section 2 of the Partition Act. The valuation has to be made as on the day. After
the shareholder applies for court’s permission to buy the share under Section 3 of the Partition Act,
the plaintiff who requested for sale under Section 2 of the Act cannot withdraw the suit under
Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC.

7.3. No limitation applicable to a final decree

Every application which seeks for a right, remedy or relief in a cause of action from a civil court
will be governed by the law of limitation. Any suit instituted after the period of limitation
prescribed in the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall be dismissed. The First Division of
the limitation act is for suits; the Second Division is for Appeals; the Third Division is for

18 | P a g e
Applications. The Third Division of the Schedule meant for Applications does not contain any
Article prescribing the limitation period for an application for Final Decree in a partition suit.

Therefore the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply to such an application for final decree, which
seeks no fresh prayer for relief. The application is nothing but a mere reminder to the court to do
its duty to appoint a Commissioner, get a report, and draw a final decree in the pending suit. Such
an application is not governed by the limitation act.

8. CONCLUSION
In a suit for partition a preliminary decree is passed before final decree. There is no restriction
that only one preliminary decree can be passed before final decree and there can be more than
one preliminary decrees before the final decree is passed e.g. after passing one preliminary
decree declaring share of the Plaintiff, another preliminary decree in the same suit can be passed
declaring the defendant’s share.

The court can order sale of property which cannot be conveniently partitioned to make the
equitable distribution of shares of parties. After the passing preliminary decree, application for
passing final decree can be moved at any time before such decree is passed and there is no period
of limitation.

In cases of immoveable property other than the above mentioned (see Order 20 Rule 18(2)) where
the court passes a preliminary decree for partition, the Court may issue a commission, under Order
26 Rules 13 and 14, to a person (usually an advocate along with a survey official) to physically
examine various aspects and conditions of the property to be divided and make partition or
separation of property according to the rights declared by the court in the preliminary decree.

A share of an estate is not equivalent to a share of a portion of an estate ; when the decree relates
to the separate possession of a share of a portion, that decree does not fall within the terms of the
section.

19 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS AND ARTICLES

 MULLA : THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 18TH EDITION.

 C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE, 9TH EDITION.
INTERNET SOURCES
 https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/partition-suit-principles-practices--10449.asp
 preliminarydecreeforpartitionarticle-180308114712 (1).pdf
 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1908-05.pdf
 https://indiankanoon.org
 advance.lexis.com
 www.manupatrafast.in

20 | P a g e