JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This is the second appeal filed by Luxmi Shankar, not a party to the suit brief claiming as a tenant arising out of a suit for partition filed by Shyam Saran, father of respondent no. 1 against Bhagwat Saran, father of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 etc. That suit was decreed for share and preparation of final decree was directed and Rs. 240/- was awarded as damages for use and occupation till 8th April 1962. Against that decree a first appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the Addition Civil Judge. Against that a second no. 1703 of 1969 was filed and a cross objection was also filed. That second appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. by his judgment dated 14-9-81. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted below. "In the result this cross objection succeeds and is allowed in part. The decree of the lower appellate court is modified to the extent that liability of damages for use and occupation and pendente lite damages shall be only of defendant No. 2 and defendant respondent no. 1 Luxmi Shanker, respondent no. 11 in the cross objection parties shall hear their own costs." 2. Final decree was prepared thereafter. Objections were filed by the appellant, but the same was dismissed by the learned Munsif by his judgment and order dated 23-1-83. Against that a first appeal was filed and the same has been dismissed by the First Addition Civil Judge by his judgment and order dated 23-12-86. Against that, the present second Appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant cannot be ejected in proceedings for preparation of preliminary or final decree as the appellant was a tenant. But he admits that the earlier judgment of this Court in Second Appeal, as quoted above, has become final. Learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, argued that the appellant can be ejected in those proceedings. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that it has been held in the judgment of this Court passed in the above Second appeal no. 1703 of 1969, that the decree of the lower appellate Court was modified to the extent that liability of damages for use and occupation and pendente lite damages shall be on Luxmi Shanker and Thakur Ji. I am of the view that it has been held in the judgment of this Court passed in the above Second appeal no. 1703 of 1969, that the decree of the lower appellate Court was modified to the extent that liability of damages for use and occupation and pendente lite damages shall be on Luxmi Shanker and Thakur Ji. But nothing was said in that judgment about ejectment of the appellant or otherwise. In the present Second Appeal. I am of the view that no observations are required to be made as the nature of preparation of final decree is entirely different as the adjustment remain between co-sharers. No doubt it is made clear that liability of the appellant Luxmi Shanker and Thakur Ji would be to pay damages for use and occupation and pendente lite damages etc. It shall however, be open to co-shares in whose share the laud held by the appellant falls, to take appropriate action. 5. With these observations, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim stay order if any, is vacated. 6. Office is directed to send back the records of the courts below forthwith. 7. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the appellant within three weeks on payment of usual charges.