ORDER K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. The point for consideration in this revision is whether a supplementary preliminary decree can be passed in a suit for partition. 2. First respondent filed a suit for partition as O. S.325/1975 before Munsiff's Court, Chittur for partition and separate possession of her share in plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The properties originally belonged to 2nd respondent and his brother Narayana Vadhyar. Petitioners and 1st respondent are the legal representatives of Narayana Vadhyar. His wife Annamma Amma, who was the 5th defendant in the suit, died subsequent to the order in I. A. 1572/1985 from which this revision arises. Petitioners and 1st respondent are her legal heirs. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit directing partition and separate possession of the share of plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties. The shares of the defendants were not determined, nor was any provision made in the decree for allotment, of their shares. During the pendency of the petition for final decree petitioners moved that court by means of I. A. 1572/1985 for allotting their shares separately. That petition was allowed originally. On appeal by 3rd respondent before District Court, Palghat the petition was remanded for fresh consideration. After remand the petition was dismissed by the Munsiff for the reason that the advocate for petitioner could not point out any provision giving jurisdiction to the Trial Court to pass an additional preliminary decree. That order was appealed against before District Court, Palghat. The appeal also was dismissed with the observation that revision petitioners were not entitled to ask for a second preliminary decree. That order is under challenge in this revision. 3. It is urged on behalf of petitioners that there is no bar in passing more than one preliminary decree in a partition suit whereas counsel for respondents would submit that the Code of Civil Procedure provides only for one preliminary decree and one final decree. O.20 R.18 empowers the court to pass a preliminary decree in a suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein. O.20 R.18 empowers the court to pass a preliminary decree in a suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein. That rule as substituted in this State reads: "Where the court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share therein, 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 a suit for partition the court should not merely give a decree for plaintiffs' share, but should also consider the shares of all other cosharers. The equities claimed by the respective parties are also to be worked out and provided for in the preliminary decree. Can any sharer claim a supplemental preliminary decree either by way of amendment of the original preliminary decree or by way of an additional preliminary decree is the precise question that arises for consideration in this revision. 4. A partition suit comes to an end only when a final decree is passed. Until then the partition suit has to be deemed to be pending. As early as 1924 the Privy Council in Lachmi Narayan v. Balmkund ( AIR 1924 PC 198 ) has held that it is open to any party to a suit to whose interest it is that further proceedings be taken, to initiate supplementary proceedings after decree. In the ordinary course it is the plaintiff who moves. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court had occasion to consider this question in Kasi v. Ramanathan Chettiar (1947) II MLJ 523). That was a suit for taking of partnership accounts. The court has adjudicated on the substantive rights of the parties with regard to the several matters in controversy in the suit. Some of the issues were reserved for consideration at the time of passing the final decree. Those, issues were considered after the commissioner submitted his report. An order was passed directing the commissioner to take accounts afresh. The question arose whether that order amounted to a supplementary preliminary decree. It was contended before the Division Bench that only one preliminary decree can be passed under the Code. Those, issues were considered after the commissioner submitted his report. An order was passed directing the commissioner to take accounts afresh. The question arose whether that order amounted to a supplementary preliminary decree. It was contended before the Division Bench that only one preliminary decree can be passed under the Code. Repelling that contention it was held: "If an occasion arises, as it has arisen in present case, for making such an order after a preliminary decree has been passed we fail to see why it should not fall under O.20, R.15 itself as a supplementary preliminary decree unless there is clear indication in the provisions of the Code that no more than one preliminary decree can be passed in a suit in which such a decree is provided for." Noting that the preponderance of authority of the Allahabad High Court upholds the principle of one preliminary and one final decree, that of the Bombay High Court favouring the opposite view and the Calcutta High Court speaking with different voices, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has examined the position at length. It was observed that the question is not whether the Code allows more than one preliminary decree or one final decree to be made, but whether the Code contains a prohibition against the court in a proper case passing more than one such decree. It was held that there are indications that the Code contemplates more than one preliminary decree and one final or executable decree in a suit. After a survey of the decisions of various High Courts Patanjali, Sastri J. (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench ultimately held: ".....................we do not feel pressed by any current of authority to hold that the Court, in a proper case, has no power to make more than one preliminary decree and one final decree, at any rate in those classes of suits in which the Code expressly provides for the passing of a preliminary decree." 5. The decision of the Division Bench in Kasi's case (supra) was approved by a Full Bench of the same High Court in Basavayya v. Guravayya (AIR 1951 Madras 938). The decision of the Division Bench in Kasi's case (supra) was approved by a Full Bench of the same High Court in Basavayya v. Guravayya (AIR 1951 Madras 938). After observing that it is open to the Court to give appropriate directions regarding all or any of the matters even after the passing of the preliminary decree the Full Bench has even said that the Court can exercise that power either suo moto or on the application of the parties. It was further held that O.20 R.18 does not prohibit the court from issuing such directions after the stage of a preliminary decree. 6. A different note was struck by this Court in Krishnan Nair v. Kunhikannan Nair ( 1959 KLT 271 ) where it was held that in a suit for partition ordinarily there should be only one preliminary decree and such decree should declare the shares of the members entitled to have a partition leaving actual division to a final decree. It was also held that such defendants as objected to partition at all or others who did not claim division of their own shares should not be allowed after preliminary decree to intervene in respect of their shares. 7. The question whether the Court is competent to take into account the matters set out in a compromise entered into since the date of the decree came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in AIR 1965 Madras 305 (Subramania Iyar v. Thangammal). It was held that the court is competent to take into account those matters set out in the compromise and issue fresh directions for the purpose of passing a final decree, but observed that the directions so issued should be construed as not an amendment to the preliminary decree already passed, but rather as a fresh preliminary decree, which it is open to the court dealing with a partition suit to pass at any time till the stage of passing the final decree is over. 8. The words "declaring the rights of several parties interested in the property" occurring in O.20 R.18 were held to be of great significance by the Allahabad High Court in Bittan Devi v. Rudra Sen (AIR 1966 Allahabad 601). Generally the court declares the share of the plaintiff. If the defendants also request for determination of their share, the preliminary decree should contain a declaration of such shares also. Generally the court declares the share of the plaintiff. If the defendants also request for determination of their share, the preliminary decree should contain a declaration of such shares also. It was held that if the defendants' rights have not been declared in the preliminary decree, the aggrieved party can challenge the decree in appeal or can apply for review. But once the preliminary decree has declared the shares of the defendants, they can apply to the court and get their share partitioned even after the passing of the preliminary decree provided they pay the requisite court fee under the law. 9. In 1967 this question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. In the decision in AIR 1967 SC 1470 (Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal) it was held that a second preliminary decree can be passed in a suit for petition. It is observed that it is not disputed that in a partition suit the court has jurisdiction to amend shares suitably even if the preliminary decree has been passed if some member of the family to whom an allotment was made in the preliminary decree dies thereafter. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Parashuram v. Hirabai (AIR 1957 Bombay 59) was relied on by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held : "There is no prohibition in the Code of Civil Procedure against passing a second preliminary decree in such circumstances and we do not see why we should rule out a second preliminary decree in such circumstances only on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate such a possibility." What is required is that the circumstances should justify the passing of a second or supplementary preliminary decree. Having observed thus the Supreme Court proceeded to hold: "So for therefore as partition suits are concerned we have no doubt that it an event transpires after the preliminary decree which necessitates a change in shares, the court can and should do so; and if there is a dispute in that behalf, the order of the court deciding that dispute and making variation in shares specified in the preliminary decree already passed is a decree in itself which would be liable to appeal." It was made clear that this can be done only so long as the final decree has not been passed. 10. 10. The Supreme Court has noted the divergence of views of the various High Courts on this aspect, but preferred the view of the High Courts which held that a second preliminary decree can be passed particularly in partition suits where parties have died after the preliminary decree and shares specified in the preliminary decree have to be adjusted. The position has been further elucidated in the following observation: "it must not be forgotten that the suit is not over till the final decree is passed and the court has jurisdiction to decide all disputes that may arise after the preliminary decree, particularly in a partition suit due to deaths of some of the parties." The question whether there can be more than one final decree did not arise in that case and the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on that aspect. The Supreme Court has therefore laid down in clear terms that a second preliminary decree can be passed in partition suits by which the shares allotted in the preliminary decree already passed can be amended. 11. Following the decision of the Supreme Court this Court has held in Mayimu v. Kaliyammal ( AIR 1968 Ker. 282 ) that there can be any number of preliminary decrees. The Orissa High Court also is of the same view (vide the decision in G. Martha v. B. Pradhan, AIR 1977 Orissa 154). Therein it is further observed that the court may give such directions as may be necessary from time to time to adjust the equities between the parties as regards the valuation of the properties and their allotment to individual sharers and decide all other incidental matters that may arise. 12. The law is well settled that in a partition suit there can be any number of preliminary decrees. Any of the sharers will therefore be entitled to get the preliminary decree amended, or request for passing a supplementary preliminary decree. A question arises as to whether the supplemental preliminary decree contemplated in the decision of the Supreme Court is confined to case of augmentation or reduction of shares on account of some event which happened subsequent to the preliminary decree, for eg. by death, birth, subsequent legislation etc. A question arises as to whether the supplemental preliminary decree contemplated in the decision of the Supreme Court is confined to case of augmentation or reduction of shares on account of some event which happened subsequent to the preliminary decree, for eg. by death, birth, subsequent legislation etc. One can also visualise a case where the property or one of the properties sought to be partitioned is lost either by land acquisition proceedings or by any other, manner, for e g. lose by fire or sea erosion. It is open to the parties to request the court to take into account these altered circumstances into consideration for the purpose of allotting shares or for reallocation of shares. A redistribution of the shares was requested for in the case before the Supreme Court and it was on the facts of that case the Supreme Court held that a supplementary preliminary decree can be passed in partition suits by which the shares allotted already can be amended. At the same time it has been laid down that the suit is not over till the final decree is passed and the Court has jurisdiction to decide all issues that arise after the preliminary decree. Special mention was made about the redistribution of shares due to death of some of the parties. That is only illustrative of one of the circumstances in which the preliminary decree can be got amended or a supplementary preliminary decree can be passed. This position has been made clear by this Court in the decision in M. Kunhirama Kurup v. N. Krishnan Kurup ( AIR 1987 Ker. 13 ). This Court held that the words "There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits the passing of more than one preliminary decree if circumstances justify the same and that it may be necessary to do so" appearing in the decision of the Supreme Court indicate that in partition suits there is no prohibition in passing more than one preliminary decree if the circumstances justify the same and it may be necessary to do so. It is observed that on given facts the courts are having jurisdiction to decide whether there are justifying circumstances and necessity. It is further observed that it need not be understood that justifying circumstances and necessity are confined to cases similar to the case which arose before the Supreme Court. It is observed that on given facts the courts are having jurisdiction to decide whether there are justifying circumstances and necessity. It is further observed that it need not be understood that justifying circumstances and necessity are confined to cases similar to the case which arose before the Supreme Court. Some of the circumstances and instances had been mentioned in that decision which enable the parties to get a revised preliminary decree. They are augmentation, reduction or nullification of the allotments under the preliminary, decree by subsequent events happening before the passing of the final decree. Even these instances are not exhaustive, but only illustrative. So long as a final decree is not passed, it is open to the parties to request the court to take into consideration ahead circumstances for the purpose of allotting shares to the parties at the stage of final decree. 13. Learned counsel for respondents would contend that this Court has held against passing a supplementary preliminary decree in Krishnan Nair's case (supra) and that the decision was holding the field for more than 30 years. The court below has relied on that decision in denying relief to revision petitioners. But the Supreme Court had since then considered the decisions of the various High Courts and the divergent views on this aspect and had preferred the view taken by the High Courts which held that a second preliminary decree can be passed particularly in partition suits. The decision in 1959 KLT 271 to the extent to which it goes against the decision of the Supreme Court has to be taken as impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court's decision. 14. What are the circumstances in which a supplementary preliminary decree can be passed is the next aspect to be considered. Some of the grounds available to the parties had been pointed out by this Court in Kunhirama Kurup's case (supra). But as observed earlier they are not exhaustive, but only illustrative. In a case where there had been determination of the shares of all parties, there may not be any difficulty. Some of the grounds available to the parties had been pointed out by this Court in Kunhirama Kurup's case (supra). But as observed earlier they are not exhaustive, but only illustrative. In a case where there had been determination of the shares of all parties, there may not be any difficulty. In a case where shares were declared, but separate allotment was not allowed to defendants on account of non payment of requisite court fee, no further enquiry is contemplated whereas only a formal amendment of the preliminary decree directing allotment of shares to the defendants who had filed written statements need be made provided they had paid court-fee since then. Similarly shares due to sharers who are exparte in the suit can also be ordered to be allotted provided the shares had been determined in the preliminary decree and no further enquiry is necessary either regarding shares or any other issue between the parties and defendants claim only separation and allotment of the shares so determined. The augmentation or reduction of shares due to death of one of the sharers also does not pose any difficulty since the same can be done by requesting the court for redetermination of shares consequent to the death of a sharer. Re-determination of shares can also be made in case of acquisition of property or a portion of the property since the date of preliminary decree or destruction of property by fire or loss of property or portion of the property by sea erosion or for similar reasons. 15. Difficulty may arise only in cases where defendants had filed written statements opposing the claim of plaintiff and had not sought determination and separation of their shares. In such cases, as in the present case, the share due to plaintiff alone would have been determined ordinarily. As such a re-opening of the suit in order to determine the shares of defendants necessitates a re-trial of the suit especially in cases where disputes inter se among defendants are to be decided. Even in such cases an additional or supplementary preliminary decree can be passed provided the preliminary decree has determined the shares of defendants also and no further enquiry is necessary regarding any of the disputes among the defendants inter se. Even in such cases an additional or supplementary preliminary decree can be passed provided the preliminary decree has determined the shares of defendants also and no further enquiry is necessary regarding any of the disputes among the defendants inter se. A supplementary preliminary decree can be claimed also in cases where defendants subsequently claim the remaining shares either jointly or severally without raising any contention whatsoever. The purpose of enabling the defendants to get a supplementary preliminary decree is to see that the reliefs which can be worked out in the same suit itself are to be determined in the same suit without the parties being driven to a separate suit. Defendants might have been negligent at one point of time either in paying court fee or claiming separation of their shares; but once they are also found to be sharers, the reliefs can be worked out in the same suit itself and that appears to be the reason why the preponderance of authorities of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court is in favour of the view that a supplementary preliminary decree can be passed. Courts have a duty to see that as far as possible multiplicity of proceedings are to be prevented and final determination regarding the rights of parties made in the same suit itself. The re-opening of the suit for the purpose of passing a supplementary preliminary decree is necessitated only for the limited purpose of allotment of shares to the defendants in whose favour such an order has not been passed earlier. At the same time it has to be seen that parties should not be allowed to reagitate the matter by getting the suit re-opened. Defendants should not be given an opportunity to raise issues, nor should they be given an opportunity in the same suit to get a determination of the dispute inter se among them in the guise of a request for a supplementary preliminary decree. The court has to see that unnecessary delay is not caused to the plaintiff in working out the reliefs granted to him under the preliminary decree. 16. Coming to the case on hand it is seen that revision petitioners had not requested for separation of shares, nor was any mention made in the written statement about the shares to which they are entitled. 16. Coming to the case on hand it is seen that revision petitioners had not requested for separation of shares, nor was any mention made in the written statement about the shares to which they are entitled. They disputed the claim of plaintiff over the properties and disclaimed liability to pay profits. They contended that the rights of plaintiff were lost by adverse possession and limitation. On the pleadings therefore an issue regarding the shares of defendants did not arise and no issue was also framed. The only issue regarding the shares of parties is issue No.8 which reads; "What is the correct share due to the plaintiff?" The function of the court was only to ascertain the share due to the plaintiff and that has been ascertained and provided for in the preliminary decree. Revision petitioners, did not set up any claim to any share over the properties, nor did they want those shares to be determined or provided for in the preliminary decree. In the circumstances the request for amending the preliminary decree or for passing a supplementary preliminary decree determining the shares of revision petitioners does not arise. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents a fresh trial is necessitated in case revision petitioners are to be permitted to claim their shares in this suit itself. The dismissal of the petition for amendment of the decree is therefore justified. 17. The maintainability of the revision is questioned by learned counsel for respondents. According to him to the proper remedy is by way of appeal since the order amounts to a decree. Though this question did not directly arise for consideration before the Supreme Court in Phoolchand's case ( AIR 1967 SC 1470 ), the Supreme Court was considering an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in an appeal against the order of the Trial Court. This court had considered that question in AIR 1968 Kerala 282 (supra) where it was held that the order of the court directing sale of certain item after passing of a preliminary decree which cannot be conveniently divided among the sharers amounts to a final adjudication of the rights of the parties. It was held that the order amounts to a preliminary decree and hence appealable. It was also held that a revision against such order is not maintainable. It was held that the order amounts to a preliminary decree and hence appealable. It was also held that a revision against such order is not maintainable. The order was found to be a decree within the meaning of S.2 of the C. P. C. Support for this view can also be had in U. C. G. & P. Factory v. Rama Rao (AIR 1971 Mysore 347). In that case a question arose as to whether plaintiffs were entitled to the assets of the partnership and the court by its order determined that the plaintiffs have got a right in the assets of the partnership. It was held that if such a determination is made, the party has a right of appeal. The revision filed against that order was found to be not maintainable. The position here is also identical. The revision is against the order of the court below refusing to adjudicate on the rights of the revision petitioners to get a supplementary preliminary decree. Following the decisions referred above I hold that the revision is not maintainable. In the result the revision is dismissed, but without costs.