• Today: November 11, 2025

Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (1967)

01 January, 1970
2051
Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (1967) — Multiple Preliminary Decrees in Partition Suits | The Law Easy

Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (1967)

Supreme Court of India 1967 Wanchoo, Bachawat, Ramaswami Partition | CPC 7–8 min read
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)
Author: Gulzar Hashmi India • Published: 06 Sep 2024
Illustration showing partition of property and court decrees
CASE_TITLE Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (1967)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS preliminary decree, partition suit, CPC 1908, multiple preliminary decrees
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS share variation after death, validity of will, invalid sale, High Court appeal, Supreme Court
PUBLISH_DATE 06-Sep-2024
AUTHOR_NAME Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION India
Slug phoolchand-v-gopal-lal-1967
Canonical Schema Ready

Quick Summary

This case confirms a simple rule for partition suits: life changes, so shares can change. If something happens after the first preliminary decree—like a party’s death—the court may revise shares and even issue another preliminary decree. The goal is accuracy before the final decree.

Issues

  1. Can courts pass more than one preliminary decree in a partition suit when later events change shares?
  2. Were the High Court and Trial Court right to vary shares without first drawing a fresh decree?

Rules

  • CPC 1908 does not prohibit multiple preliminary decrees in partition suits.
  • Courts have jurisdiction to amend shares if a party dies or another legal event changes entitlement after the first decree.
  • Accuracy of shares before the final decree is essential to do complete justice.

Facts (Timeline)

1937: Phoolchand filed a suit for partition of his one-fifth share.
Defendants: Sohan Lal (father), Gopal Lal (brother), and Rajmal (minor adopted son of late Gokalchand).
Case went up to the Privy Council of former Jaipur State. A preliminary decree fixed shares of all five members.
After preliminary decree: Father died; soon after, mother also died.
Respondent claimed father’s share under his will. Appellant claimed mother’s share under a sale deed. Appellant disputed the will’s genuineness.
Trial Court varied shares but did not draw a fresh preliminary decree.
High Court: appeal maintainable; variation worked as a decree; mother’s sale invalid; will genuine.
Appeal: Matter reached the Supreme Court.
Timeline graphic of events in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal

Arguments

Appellant

  • Trial Court could not vary shares without a fresh preliminary decree.
  • Will was not genuine; mother’s sale should stand.
  • High Court erred in treating the variation as a decree for appeal.

Respondent

  • Court can adjust shares after first decree when circumstances change.
  • Will was valid; testator could bequeath his share, including what came from joint property.
  • High Court rightly treated the variation as appealable.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the approach that in partition suits, courts may pass more than one preliminary decree. When events after the first decree change entitlements, the court should recalculate and, where needed, issue a second preliminary decree before drawing the final decree.

The Court accepted the will in favour of the respondent as genuine and effective. It agreed that the mother’s sale was invalid. The appeals were dismissed.

Judgment emphasis: ability to issue a second preliminary decree in partition suits

Ratio Decidendi

The CPC does not bar multiple preliminary decrees in partition suits. Courts must reflect real, updated shares when circumstances change after the first decree, so that the final decree accurately divides the property.

Why It Matters

  • Makes partition proceedings flexible and fair.
  • Prevents injustice from outdated share calculations.
  • Guides trial courts to update shares before the final decree.

Key Takeaways

  • Multiple preliminary decrees are permitted in partition suits.
  • Later events (death, valid will/transfer) can change shares.
  • Courts should revise shares before passing the final decree.
  • Genuine wills can affect shares in joint property allocations.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PRELIM x2 for True Shares”

  1. Spot Change: death/transfer alters shares.
  2. Revise Shares: issue another preliminary decree.
  3. Then Final: pass a precise final decree.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can courts issue a second preliminary decree in a partition suit when shares change after the first decree?

Rule: CPC allows courts to adjust shares; no bar on multiple preliminary decrees in partition suits.

Application: Here, deaths and claims required fresh calculation; a second preliminary decree ensured correct shares.

Conclusion: Yes. Courts may pass another preliminary decree to reflect new realities before the final decree.

Glossary

Preliminary Decree
A first-stage decision fixing rights/shares, followed later by a final decree.
Final Decree
The concluding order that executes actual division as per the final shares.
Partition Suit
A case to split joint property among co-owners according to their shares.

FAQs

Courts can pass more than one preliminary decree in partition suits if later events change shares. Accuracy comes before finality.

No. The Supreme Court clarified there is no such bar in CPC, especially for partition suits.

The father’s will was held genuine and effective; the mother’s sale was invalid. These findings guided the revised shares.

Because the final decree must match the true, current shares. A second preliminary decree resets the blueprint for final division.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Civil Procedure Partition Decrees
```
Courtroom imagery: recalculating shares before final decree

Comment

Nothing for now