Judgment Intelligence
Disposed OfRaja Ishwari Singh (Deceased) through LRs v. Raja Hari Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Anr.
2026:RJ-JP:42157
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 19/1980
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 13 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Ashok Kumar Jain
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 151; Order 41 Rule 27
Final Outcome
First appeal disposed of: applications under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC allowed, the settlement for the final decree taken on record, and the decree of 23.12.1978 affirmed in view of the final decree of 13.08.2026; no order as to costs (paras 13-16).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 13.10.2026
Key holdings
- The appeal, filed on 02.07.1979 in a suit instituted in 1961, was described as the oldest first appeal at the Jaipur Bench (para 8).
- The final decree passed with the parties’ consent on 13.08.2026 was taken on record as a subsequent event (paras 5, 13).
- No objection to the division was raised before the trial court, and no one challenged the final decree (paras 10-11).
- Following Machado Brothers, adjudicating the share dispute after the final decree would be futile (paras 11-12).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Raja Hari Singh's suit for partition of movable and immovable properties, instituted in 1961 and numbered civil suit No. 115/1974 (19/1961), was decreed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City on 23.12.1978 (paras 1, 8). The listed properties were divided equally among the plaintiff and defendants Raja Ishwari Singh and Maji Sahiba Pritam Kunwarji (para 10). The first appeal against that preliminary decree was filed on 02.07.1979 (para 8). During its pendency, the same court passed a final decree on 13.08.2026 in misc. application No. 32/2024; a Commissioner had been appointed (paras 2, 10). The appellants' side admitted filing no objection to the proposed division; the respondents said all parties had consented to the final decree (paras 3-4).
Court's Findings
The Court treated the final decree of 13.08.2026 as a subsequent event during the pendency of the appeal, took it on record and considered it appropriate to dispose of the appeal at that stage (para 5). It relied on Shipping Corporation of India v. Machado Brothers, (2004) 11 SCC 168, which it read as holding that when subsequent events bear on pending civil proceedings, the court must take such action as is necessary in the interest of justice, including disposing of the litigation; a party may apply under Section 151 CPC to show facts that have left the litigation without purpose, and the court then inquires whether it should continue (para 7). The final decree was prepared in consonance with the preliminary decree after notice to all shareholders, and the property has been divided without challenge (para 9). The appellants raised no objection before the trial court and showed no ground for re-examining the shares fixed in 1978 (para 10). Although the appeal still contested the shares, no one objected to or challenged the final decree, and the division took place with the parties' concurrence (para 11). Entering into the controversy in detail would be "a futile exercise" (para 12).
Legal Principle
A final decree passed with the parties' consent while an appeal against the preliminary decree in a partition suit is pending is a subsequent event. If no one challenges it, the appellate court may, on an application under Section 151 CPC and following Machado Brothers, dispose of the appeal instead of re-examining the shares (paras 5, 7, 11-13).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Shipping Corporation of India v. Machado Brothers and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 168
Where a subsequent event leaves pending litigation without purpose, the court may dispose of it in the interest of justice on an application under Section 151 CPC; applied to dispose of the first appeal after the consent final decree.