ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 19.12.1986 passed in a suit filed by the plaintiffs - Sh. Chandra Prakash and Sh. Vikat Prakash sons of Sh. Himmat Singh Bhatnagar, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 121/1978. 2. The plaintiffs have instituted the aforesaid suit for partition inter alia contending that there were two houses being House No. 42 and 48 owned by their grand-father-Sh. Urjan Singh Bhatnagar, who had expired in the year 1925, leaving behind him two sons namely Himmat Singh and Karan Singh. 3. The plaintiffs are the sons of the Himmat Singh, while defendants No. 2 to 4 are legal representatives of Karan Singh. The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence and material available on record has found each of the legal representatives of Himmat Singh and Karan Singh, entitled to a half share. As a result whereof, the preliminary decree in following terms came to be passed :- ^^var esa urhtk ;g gS fd bl nkos ds vUnj fizyhfeusjh fM+dzh foHkktu dh ikjhr dh tkrh gS vkSj ;g djkj fn;k tkrk gS fd vfoHkkftr edkukr ua0 48 o 42 ftlds vkl ikl okni= ds isjk ua0 3 esa fn;s x;s gS vkSj tks mn;iqj ds okM+Z ua 6 esa fLFkr gS mldk oknhx.k dk 1@2 fgLlk gS vkSj izfroknhx.k la0 1 ls yxk;r 4 dk Hkh 1@2 fgLlk gS vkSj dfe'uj fu;qDr fd;k tkos rkfd og edku ua0 42 o 48 nksuksa dh iSekb'k dj mu ij cus gq, edkukr vkSj mudh dher ds ckcr fjiksVZ djs rkfd deh is'kh dher ,d ls nwljs dks fnyk;h tk lds vkSj dCtk dk;e j[krs gq, fookfnr laifRr dk dVokM+k djus ckcr~ fjiksVZ djsA lkFk esa oknhx.k ds i{k esa o izfroknhx.k la0 1 ls yxk;r 4 ds fo:) 1501@& dh fM+dzh Hkh ikjhr dh tkrh gSA nkos dk [kjpk i{kdkjku viuk viuk okgu djsaxsA mij crk;s ekfQd fizyhfeujh fM+dzh cuk;h tkosaA izfroknhx.k ua0 3 o 4 ds f[kykQ ;g fMdzh Exparte gSA** 4. The defendant No. 5-Narain Vallabh son of Champa Lal had been impleaded as a party to the suit proceedings as he had purchased the house No. 42 from defendants No. 1/1 to 1/3 being legal representatives of Raj Kumar Bhatnagar on 22.02.1965, vide registered sale deed (Ex.8). 5. The defendant No. 5-Narain Vallabh son of Champa Lal had been impleaded as a party to the suit proceedings as he had purchased the house No. 42 from defendants No. 1/1 to 1/3 being legal representatives of Raj Kumar Bhatnagar on 22.02.1965, vide registered sale deed (Ex.8). 5. The present appeal has been field by the defendant No. 5, the purchaser of the property challenging the preliminary decree dated 19.12.1986. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant at the out set submitted that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser, having purchased the property way back in 1965 from Raj Kumar Bhatnagar and his legal representatives, who were having possession and ownership of the property. 7. He submitted that as far as determination of shares of the legal representatives of Late Sh. Urjan Singh is concerned, the appellant has no concern or grievance. His grievance is only limited to the extent that his ownership, right and title over the property should not be put to peril. 8. It is apparent to note that neither the legal representatives of the plaintiffs nor defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have laid challenge to the said preliminary decree dated 19.12.1986, for which, it can be conveniently concluded that there is no quarrel in relation to determination of the shares of the respective parties. 9. Mr. S.G. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs - respondents No. 1 and 2 fairly submitted that his clients have also no grievance, if the right and title of the appellant are kept intact. He however, submitted that the Trial Court be directed to take into account the factum of sale of the property to the appellant and the consideration or the deemed consideration thereof, which the seller defendant No. 1 and 2 have received in pursuance of the sale of the subject property being house No. 42 to the appellant, be accounted for and while passing the final decree, respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiff be given their share out of the consideration received on account of impugned sale. 10. He also submitted that the Trial Court be asked to compensate the plaintiff at least by way of appropriate pendant lite interest, from the date of alienation of the property till the date of the preparation of the final decree. 11. 10. He also submitted that the Trial Court be asked to compensate the plaintiff at least by way of appropriate pendant lite interest, from the date of alienation of the property till the date of the preparation of the final decree. 11. In view of the facts obtaining in the present case, since present appeal is pending since 1986 against the preliminary decree and the final decree is yet to be prepared, it is deemed appropriate and hence ordered that the rights of the appellant-defendant No. 5, in relation to ownership and possession of the house No. 42 in Mohan Lal Gogawat Wadi, Udaipur shall not be disturbed, however in place thereof, while preparing the final decree, learned Court shall take into account the consideration or value of the property on the date of sale viz. 22.02.1965. 12. The Trial Court shall proportion the consideration/value of the property namely aforesaid house No. 42 and thereafter prepare the final decree in line with the preliminary decree dated 19.12.1986. 13. With these observations, the present appeal stands partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1986 is modified to the above extent.