Pande, J.:— This application is against the orders dated the 21st June, 1944, of the Subordinate Judge, 1st court, Monghyr by which he rejected the petitioner's objection to the engrossment on stamped paper of the decree in Title Suit no. 425 of 1921 of that court.
It appears that the suit was for partition of a joint family estate. It was decreed on compromise on 17th December, 1921. On the 20th December, 1921, the parties were directed to file requisite non-judicial stamp for the final decree. None of the parties filed the requisite stamp. After a lapse of more than twenty-two years defendant no. 3 filed a petition on the 15th April, 1944, by which he offered to file non-judicial stamp for the preparation of the final decree. The Court issued notice on the parties concerned to show cause by 29th May, 1944, why the prayer of defendant no. 3 should not be allowed. No objection was filed. On the 31st May, 1944, the Court passed an order for the engrossment of the decree on the stamp. On that date defendant no. 3 filed non-judicial stamp worth Rs. 156-12-0 for final decree. The office was directed to report as to the sufficiency of the stamp. On office report the defendant was directed on the 3rd June, 1944, to state the value of the property under partition and to furnish other details by 8th June, 1944. On that date defendant no. 7 appeared and asked for time to file objection. On the 10th June, 1944, he filed an objection to the preparation of the decree. The main objections were that the decree was not a valid one and the minor defendants in the suit were not properly represented; that the decree having been passed more than twenty years before no final decree could be prepared after the lapse of such a long time and that after the passing of the decree some of the properties which were the subject matter of the suit had become non-existent and some had passed out of the, hands of the parties and some other had changed their feature and were subject to liabilities. The Court rejected all the objections for the reason stated in the order. Defendant no. 7 presented this application for the revision of the said order.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the decree was not engrossed on stamped paper and so the suit must be deemed to be pending and final decree should not be prepared until the persons interested in the properties were served with notice and without a proper enquiry as to the existence and conditions of the properties that formed the subject of partition in the said suit. In my opinion, there is no substance in these contentions. Rule 18 of Order XX of the Civil Procedure Code provides:—
“Where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share therein, then,—
(2) if and in so far as such decree relates to any other immoveable property or to moveable property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property and giving such further directions as may be required.”
In the present case the decree was passed on compromise. It was admitted that by the compromise the properties allotted to the share of each party was clearly specified and schedules of properties allotted to each was appended to the compromise petition. Therefore no further enquiry was at all necessary. In such circumstance the decree did not merely declare the rights of the several parties interested in the properties but also allotted the properties according to the respective shares of each party. Therefore it was not a preliminary decree but it was the final decree in the suit. A compromise decree in a partition suit alloting specific parcels to the parties is a final order for effecting partition [Muzaffar Husain v. Sharafat Husain]. There being already a final decree the only thing that remained to be done was to engross it on a stamped paper under Article 45 of the Stamp Act, 1899. The decree to be engrossed on the stamp will bear the date of the decree, 17th December, 1921, and will declare the position of the parties in respect of the properties on that date. There is no time limit prescribed by the statute for the engrossment of a partition decree on stamp of requisite value. In fact no date was fixed by the Court for the purpose. Therefore mere engrossment of the decree on stamped paper of the requisite value will not in any way affect the interest of the parties in respect of the properties though, changes may have taken place in regard to the properties since the decree was made on the 17th December, 1921. The only effect of engrossment of the decree on stamped paper would be that it will be rendered legally effective which it is not until so engrossed. I, therefore, see no substance whatsoever in the objections raised by the petitioner to the engrossment of the decree on stamped paper. The application is dismissed. Hearing fee one gold mohur.
Sinha, J.:— I agree.
Application dismissed.
K.D