JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. This appeal arises from the final decree passed by the Court of the IInd Additional Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam on 19.12.2009 in O.S.No.1098 of 1995, a suit for settlement of accounts instituted by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellant is the wife of the first cousin of the first respondent. The first respondent/first defendant was engaged in the business of production of feature films. The appellant and the first defendant entered into an agreement on 28.9.1993 regarding the production of a malayalam movie by name 'Chukkan'. Yet another agreement was entered into on 28.11.1993. As per the terms of the agreement between the parties, the appellant would be the joint owner of the film 'Chukkan' and two more films. She was also entitled to a share in the profits. The understanding between the parties was that they would contribute finances to meet the expenditure for production of the films. It appears, contrary to the agreement between the parties, the first defendant assigned the rights over the film 'Chukkan' to the second defendant as per agreement dated 27.12.1993. On coming to know of it, the appellant herein instituted O.S.No.228 of 1994 in the Court of the IInd Additional Munsiff of Ernakulam joining the respondents herein as defendants and prayed for a declaration that the film 'Chukkan' was produced under a joint venture between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the first defendant has no right to deal with the said film without her consent. She also prayed for a declaration that Ext.A23 agreement between defendants 1 and 2 is not binding on her and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from further exhibiting the film without her consent. Though the appellant/plaintiff prayed for an interim order of injunction in that suit, that was not granted by the trial court. The appellate court also did not grant that relief. The appellant/plaintiff thereupon filed C.R.P.No.942 of 1994 in this court. C.R.P.No.942 of 1994 was heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge of this court by order passed on 18.7.1994. The operative portion of the order passed by this court in C.R.P.No.942 of 1994 reads as follows: "5. The appellate court also did not grant that relief. The appellant/plaintiff thereupon filed C.R.P.No.942 of 1994 in this court. C.R.P.No.942 of 1994 was heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge of this court by order passed on 18.7.1994. The operative portion of the order passed by this court in C.R.P.No.942 of 1994 reads as follows: "5. From Exts.A1 and A3 it could be seen that it was actually a joint venture and Ext.B9 further shows that the investment made by the plaintiff is more than that of the first defendant. The right over the film has been transferred to the 2nd defendant and moneys are due pursuant to that. If ultimately the plaintiff wins in getting a declaration that it is a joint venture and she is entitled to share the profit under Ext.A1, and if by that time the entire money is received by the first defendant, it is apprehended that the plaintiff may not be able to realise the money from the 1st defendant. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice it is only reasonable that pending the disposal of the case, the money due from the 2nd defendant shall not be appropriated by the first defendant. Learned counsel for second defendant has submitted that the actual amount due from the 2nd defendant now is more than Rs.5 Lakhs. The second respondent shall deposit that before the trial court and the trial court in disposing of the case shall make appropriate orders regarding that amount. The deposit shall be in installments as provided in Ext.B11. The trial court shall dispose of the Suit, untrammelled by the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 3. Pursuant to the said order, the second defendant deposited the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.228 of 1994. Thereafter O.S.No.228 of 1994 was tried and disposed of by judgment delivered on 15.9.1995. By the said judgment, O.S.No.228 of 1994 was decreed. The operative portion of the decree reads as follows: "In the result, the suit is decreed. The plaintiff is given decree as follows: 1. It is declared that the film "Chukkan" is produced under a joint venture between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that D1 has no right to deal with the said film without consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is given decree as follows: 1. It is declared that the film "Chukkan" is produced under a joint venture between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that D1 has no right to deal with the said film without consent of the plaintiff. 2. It is declared that Ext.A23 is not binding on the right of the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff is also granted a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from further exhibiting the film Chukkan in future without consent of the plaintiff. 4. Out of Rs.5 lakhs so deposited as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the plaintiff and D1 are permitted to withdraw half of the amount in deposit equally (i.e., Rs.2,50,000/- each). It is also made clear that the parties will be liable to account the sale amount at the time of final settlement of the account. 5. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs." 4. The said decree has admittedly attained finality with the dismissal of S.A.No.301 of 2002 by this court by judgment delivered on 9.4.2003. The appellant/plaintiff had in the meanwhile instituted the instant suit, O.S.No.1098 of 1995, on 14.11.1995 praying for the following reliefs: "(a) a decree of settlement of accounts of exhibiting and exploiting the cine film "Chukkan" and assigning Video and Audio rights through out India and abroad and dubbing rights and for recovery of amount found to be due from the defendants by the plaintiff on rendition of the accounts; (b) award the costs of the suit; and (c) grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for from time to time." 5. The respondents/defendants entered appearance and filed separate written statements resisting the suit. After considering the rival contentions, the trial court passed a preliminary decree directing that accounts between the plaintiff and the first defendant shall be taken. The parties to the suit were directed to produce all documents and account books in their custody in the final decree proceedings. The preliminary decree was not subjected to challenge either by the plaintiff or by the defendants. The parties to the suit were directed to produce all documents and account books in their custody in the final decree proceedings. The preliminary decree was not subjected to challenge either by the plaintiff or by the defendants. Shortly after the preliminary decree was passed, the appellant/plaintiff filed I.A.No.3362 of 1998 under Order XXVI Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the defendants to produce the accounts and all documents regarding the Malayalam feature film "Chukkan" and appoint a Chartered Accountant to inspect and examine the accounts and documents of Malayalam feature film Chukkan and prepare a balance statement; and Trading and Profit and Loss Account of the Malayalam feature film "Chukkan" and pass a final decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff, the amount due as per the accounts." 6. In the final decree proceedings, the Chartered Accountant appointed by the trial court submitted a report, which was marked as Ext.C1, wherein it was mentioned that as on 30.9.1995 there should be Rs.21,84,653.66/- in the hands of the second defendant by way of cash in hand/cash in bank in respect of the transactions during the period from 1.4.1993 to 30.9.1995. Neither the appellant nor the respondents filed objections to the said report. With the result, the said report was accepted. The court below accordingly held that the plaintiff, being a co-owner in respect of the film, was entitled to the sum of Rs.10,92,326.83/- and after giving credit to the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- which was withdrawn pursuant to the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, she is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.8,42,326.83/-. A final decree was accordingly passed allowing the appellant/plaintiff to recover the said sum with interest at 6% per annum from 30.9.1995 till realisation from the first defendant and her assets. The court below further directed that the decree debt shall be charged on the amount in deposit in O.S.No.228 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Ernakulam. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal aggrieved by the final decree to the extent it exonerates the second defendant from liability. The court below further directed that the decree debt shall be charged on the amount in deposit in O.S.No.228 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Ernakulam. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal aggrieved by the final decree to the extent it exonerates the second defendant from liability. The main contention raised in the instant appeal is that as the second defendant was acting as an agent of the first defendant and it was the second defendant who had exhibited the movie and made a profit, the appellant is entitled to realise the amount due to her share from the second defendant and her assets as well. 7. We heard learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Shorn of details, the main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that as the second respondent/second defendant had exhibited the film and made profit and she has stepped into the shoes of the first respondent/first defendant, she is also liable to account to the plaintiff. It is contended that in any view of the matter as the movie was being exhibited by the second defendant, the appellant is entitled to proceed against the second defendant and her assets as well, for realisation of her share of profits quantified by the court below. Per contra, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that on the terms of the preliminary decree passed by the court below, the appellant cannot proceed against the second defendant or her assets. The court below had in the judgment delivered by it on 25.11.1997, whereby a preliminary decree was passed, held that the plaintiff is entitled to get the accounts settled. It was also held that the amount, to which the plaintiff will be entitled to, will be ascertained in the final decree proceedings. The operative portion of the preliminary decree passed by the court below reads as follows: "In the result, a preliminary decree is passed and the accounts between the plaintiff and the first defendant shall be taken. The parties to the suit will produce all documents and account books in their custody in the final decree proceedings." 8. On the terms of the preliminary decree, the accounts to be taken are accounts between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The parties to the suit will produce all documents and account books in their custody in the final decree proceedings." 8. On the terms of the preliminary decree, the accounts to be taken are accounts between the plaintiff and the first defendant. It is no doubt true that the Court of the IInd Additional Munsiff of Ernakulam had in O.S.No.228 of 1994 held that the plaintiff is a co-owner of the film and that the agreement if any between the defendants is not binding on her. That by itself is not in our opinion a reason to hold that the court below has passed a preliminary decree directing the second defendant to render accounts to the first defendant. The court below had in the preliminary decree only directed that accounts be taken and settled between the plaintiff and the first defendant. In other words, the finding entered by the court below is that the first defendant cannot escape from accounting to the plaintiff by reason of the agreement entered into between her and the second defendant on 27.12.1993. The liability to account to the plaintiff is that of the first defendant only. The preliminary decree did not direct the second defendant to render accounts to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the court below was in our opinion perfectly right in fastening the liability for the sum of Rs.8,42,326.83/-, the amount found to be due to the plaintiff towards her share of profits, on the first defendant and her assets. The appellant had no case in the plaint that the second defendant was acting as the agent of the first defendant. The case set out by her in the instant suit was that the first defendant had no right to transfer absolutely to the second defendant, the rights over the film 'Chukkan'. It was her contention that the agreement if any entered into between defendants 1 and 2 is not binding on her for the reason that the first defendant had only half right over the film. The film 'Chukkan' was admittedly released on 17.3.1999. It was her contention that the agreement if any entered into between defendants 1 and 2 is not binding on her for the reason that the first defendant had only half right over the film. The film 'Chukkan' was admittedly released on 17.3.1999. Though the plaintiff had in paragraph 10 of the plaint contended that she is entitled to one-half of the amount received by the defendants in exhibiting and exploiting the film, she being the co-owner thereof, when the preliminary decree was passed, the court below directed that the accounts be taken between the plaintiff and the first defendant and settled. The court below did not pass a preliminary decree directing the second defendant to account for the profits received by her. The preliminary decree as stated earlier was not subjected to challenge either by the appellant/plaintiff or by the first defendant and it has attained finality. The appellant/plaintiff cannot on the terms of the preliminary decree contend for the position that she should be allowed to realise the amounts found due after settlement of accounts, from the second defendant personally or from her assets. Her claim in that regard is in our opinion not tenable. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.