JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27.08.2014 passed in FDP No.3/1982 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, arising from the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.73/69 wherein suit filed for partition and separate possession of schedule properties and delivery of 3/11th share to plaintiffs came to be decreed in part. Preliminary decree in O.S.No.73/69 is as under : “The 1st plaintiff to be entitled to 1/11th share, plaintiffs 2 to 4 together to be entitled to 2/11th share, defendants 1 to 3 to be together entitled to 2/11th share, defendants 4(a) and 5 to 8 to be together entitled to 2/11th share, defendants 9 to 17 to be entitled to 2/11th share and defendants 19 to 26 to be together entitled to 2/11th share in suit item No.1 and 2 subject to the rights of defendants 27 to 29 under the decrees obtained by them in O.S.No.53/67 and 123/1969 in respect of suit item 1 out of the shares of defendants 1 to 3 and 19 to 26, directing partition and possession of plaintiffs share in Item No.2 to be effected by the Deputy Commissioner or his Gazetted Sub-ordinate in accordance with Section 54 of CPC and the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act and directing the partition and possession of plaintiffs share in suit item No.1 to be effected by appointment of a Commissioner and further directing an enquiry to be conducted to determine the plaintiffs share out of the income from the suit items from the date of suit. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. There shall be a preliminary decree only with regard to the item No.1.” 3. FDP proceedings came to be initiated by plaintiffs No.1-Gowramma and others against T.G. Harinath and others. 4. Learned counsel submits that preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.73/69 on 30.06.1980 and consequently final decree proceedings preferred in FDP No.3/82 came to be disposed of on 27.08.2014. Operative portion in FDP No.3/1982 is as under : ORDER “The application filed by the Petitioner No.1(a) under Section 152 r/w Section 151 of CPC is dismissed with no order as to costs. The Prayer of the Petitioner No.1(a) made in the Memo dated:31.07.2011 not to disburse the sale proceeds is rejected. Operative portion in FDP No.3/1982 is as under : ORDER “The application filed by the Petitioner No.1(a) under Section 152 r/w Section 151 of CPC is dismissed with no order as to costs. The Prayer of the Petitioner No.1(a) made in the Memo dated:31.07.2011 not to disburse the sale proceeds is rejected. The application filed by the Respondent No.9 under Section 151 of CPC to pass a fresh preliminary decree by granting the additional share of the 10th Defendant to her is dismissed with no order as to costs. The application filed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 151 of CPC on 06.08.2008 praying to pass an order in her favour by granting the share of Plaintiff No.1 in her favour by virtue of the Registered Will is dismissed with no order as to costs. The Petition filed by the Petitioners under Order XX Rule 18 of CPC is allowed with no order as to costs. The office is directed to write a letter to the Manager to release the F.D. and the office is directed to deposit the same in Civil Court deposit. The said amount shall be disbursed as follows:- A sum of Rs.34,920/- is ordered to be paid to the Respondent No.14. The balance amount after deducting Rs.34,920/- shall be distributed as follows:- Out of the balance amount, the amount towards 1/11th share of Petitioner No.1 Smt. Gowramma shall be deposited in Punjab National Bank, Court premises, Mysore for a period of 6 months and the parties who claim the share in the said amount under the Will or independently are directed to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the validity of the Will and their right in the share of Petitioner No.1 (a). The Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for 2/11th share in the balance amount, which is available after deducting Rs.34,920/-received from the Bank. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are together entitled for 2/11th share in the balance amount, which is available after deducting Rs.34,920/-received from the Bank. The same shall be paid to them subject to the rights of the Respondent Nos.27 to 29 in the decree in O.S.No.53/67 and O.S.No.123/69 as directed in the preliminary decree. The Respondent Nos.5(a) to (f) and Respondent Nos.6 and 8 shall be collectively entitled for 2/11th share in the balance amount, which is available after deducting Rs.34,920/- received from the Bank. The Respondent Nos.5(a) to (f) and Respondent Nos.6 and 8 shall be collectively entitled for 2/11th share in the balance amount, which is available after deducting Rs.34,920/- received from the Bank. (a) The Respondent No.9, 12 to 17 and the person who succeeds to the share of Respondent No.10 shall be collectively entitled for 2/11th share in the balance amount, which is available after deducting Rs.34,920,/-received from the Bank. (b) The amount towards the share of Respondent No.10 shall be deposited in Punjab National Bank, Court Premises, Mysore for a period of 8 months and the parties who claim the share in the said amount under the Will or independently are directed to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the validity of the Will and their right in the share of Respondent No.10. The Respondent Nos.9, 12 to 17 are entitled to receive their share in the amount as per the terms of the preliminary decree. The Respondent Nos.19 to 26 are together entitled for 2/11th share in the balance amount which is available after deducting Rs.34,920/-received from the Bank. The same shall be paid to them subject to the rights of the Respondent Nos.27 to 29 in the decree in O.S.No.53/67 and O.S.No.123/69 as directed in the preliminary decree. The payment shall be made to the parties after they deposit the necessary stamp duty towards their share.” 5. Learned counsel Sri. Prasanna V.R. for appellant submits that he relies on only one ground which is the prime ground according to him. During the proceedings application was filed on behalf of plaintiff No.1a claiming that plaintiff No.1-Gowramma during her life time had executed a Will on 29.11.1968 bequeathing her right in favour of plaintiff No.1a. 6. Learned counsel Sri. B.S. Vishwanath for respondent No.31 would submit that if the appellant is relying on the Will for the benefit of plaintiff No.1a, FDP cannot be consumed to be the platform for adjudicating such rights. 7. Thus, in the whole context of the matter the parties filing the application is to allow the petitioner to file the Will and to rely on the same insofar as the share of deceased plaintiff No.1 is concerned. The Will is stated to have been denied by defendants. 8. The matter which is not part of preliminary proceedings and never urged during the preliminary decree proceedings cannot be agitated in FDP as well. 9. The Will is stated to have been denied by defendants. 8. The matter which is not part of preliminary proceedings and never urged during the preliminary decree proceedings cannot be agitated in FDP as well. 9. In the circumstances adjudicating the Will that was not part of pleadings or evidence in any manner cannot be considered insofar as adjudication of preliminary decree is concerned. It is coming up for the first time. Insofar as deceased plaintiff No.1 share is concerned it forms her estate which is to be inherited either according to testamentary or interstate succession whichever is applicable. But the scope of FDP cannot be enlarged to consider and adjudicate the Will accordingly. Thus, the rights of appellants are open for agitating the Will before appropriate court but not in the present platform of FDP. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.