\APHC010031242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the eighth day of July, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.252 Between: S. Basheer Ahmed @ Basheer Miah (died) and and Shahazadi Bee and others Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Vivekananda Virupaksha Counsel for the respondents: 1. Varun Byreddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the eighth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.252 of 2025 Basheer Ahmed @ Basheer Miah (died) and others ...Petitioners / respondents / defendants Shahazadi Bee and others ...Respondents / petitioners / plaintiffs Counsel for the petitioners: Vivekananda Virupaksha respondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the eighth day of July, two thousand and twenty five / defendants / plaintiffs 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 25.11.2024, allowing the I.A.No.100 of 2022 in O.S No.7 of 2009 on the file of Family Court-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Kurnool, filed under Order XX, Rule 18 C.P.C., seeking to appoint advocate commissioner assisted by Mandal Surveyor, Kallur to fix / demarcate respective boundaries of the lands allotted to the petitioners / plaintiffs and to pass final decree as per the Award of Lok Adalat, dated 12.09.2015, as the suit is settled before Lok Adalat and award is passed. 2. The petitioners / plaintiffs No.1 to 5 initially filed suit for partition and delivery of possession of plaint schedule six items of properties and for past and future mesne profits or income from the plaint schedule properties. 3. The case mainly pleaded in the plaint is as follows: The plaintiffs are the five daughters of late Abdul Razaq Saheb. The defendants No.1 and 2 are their two brothers, defendant No.3 is the wife of their deceased brother S. Khaja Hussain and defendants No. 4 & 5 are their two children. After Abdul Razaq's death, his estate was inherited by his wife Hajira Bi and his five daughters i.e, plaintiffs, and his three sons i.e., defendant Nos. 1, 2, and late S. Khaja Hussain. 4. The suit was amicably settled before the Lok Adalat on 12.09.2015. In the compromise, the petitioners / plaintiffs No.1 to 5 were allotted 1 acre of land consisting of land of Ac.0.96 Cents in Sy.No.10 and Ac.0.04 Cents in Sy.No.15 of Markapur village of Gokulapadu Mandal, out of item No.4 of the plaint schedule. The rest of 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 the land in item No.4 of the plaint schedule was given to the defendants. The possession of the land allotted to each plaintiff was delivered to them by the defendants. The plaintiffs gave up their claim over the remaining properties, including Sy.No.177 (6.50 acres), Sy.No.130 (7.0 acres), Sy.No.132 (8.72 acres), house properties bearing door Nos. 1/23, 1/26, 1/29, Gokulapadu, to an extent of Ac.0.17 Cents. The gift deeds bearing Nos. 444 of 2008, 445 of 2008 and 446 of 2008, dated 26-02-2008 executed in favour of the defendants No.6 to 8 in respect of the land allotted to the plaintiffs stand cancelled. Further, the plaintiffs were permitted to get the boundaries of their properties fixed through a competent surveyor as per the plan annexed to the award. 5. The plaintiffs No.1 to 5 filed I.A.No.100 of 2022 to pass final decree as per the award after appointing an advocate / commissioner assisted by a Mandal Surveyor to fix / demarcate the boundaries of their lands, stating that the terms of the award permit the plaintiffs to get the boundaries of their shares of land by a competent surveyor as per the plan annexed to the award and that though possession of the lands were given but boundaries are yet to be fixed or demarcated for the purpose of passing final decree. 6. The counter filed by the respondent No.5 in I.A No.100 of 2022, and adopted by respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to 8, reads mainly as follows: The petitioners agreed before the Lok Adalat to relinquish their claims over other properties, including Survey No.176/1A (8.17 acres) in Gokulapadu village and a house bearing No.32/28 in Kurnool, but the petitioner No.1 filed a false case before the M.R.O., in respect of land of Ac.8.17 Cents in S.No.176 / A, which was negatived consequent to 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 which an appeal was preferred before the R.D.O. who also negatived due to which an appeal was filed vide RC No.D5/1026/2018 before the Joint Collector, Kurnool, who directed the parties to approach the civil Court, whereas the petitioners already clearly admitted before the Lok Adalat giving up their claim in properties other than given to them in the plaint schedule properties. The respondents are ready to fix and demarcate boundaries of the lands already allotted to the petitioners as per the award. The petition was filed with malafide intention to gain wrongful benefits. The petition filed under these circumstances is not maintainable. 7. Subsequently, on 28.01.2024, the petitioner No.1 filed E.P.No.04 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Kurnool, to register her share of property as per the Lok Adalat award, stating that she filed petition before the Sub-Registrar, Gudur, for registration of her share, but the Sub-Registrar had given an endorsement No.1308/2023, dated 11.12.2023, requiring to duly present the document executed by the concerned parties along with ROR(1B) i.e., revenue record in the name of the executants for the process of the document as per the Registration Act, 1908, and that she had requested the respondents to register her share of property, but as they had not responded, she also got issued a legal notice to all the respondents and they had not responded. 8. The trial Court, after hearing both parties, allowed the petition and appointed an advocate as commissioner to fix / demarcate the respective boundaries of the lands allotted to the petitioners / plaintiffs with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Kallur, as per the Lok Adalat award dated 12.09.2015. Further, the commissioner was directed to 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 give notices to both parties and their respective counsels prior to executing the warrant and both parties were directed to co-operate with the commissioner in execution of warrant and called for commissioner’s report by 31.12.2024. 9. Aggrieved by the above order, this revision petition was filed by the defendants / respondents No.1 to 8 contending that the Award does not contemplate any further proceedings or otherwise and the only option open to them is to fix their respective boundaries by a competent surveyor as per the Award by taking recourse to the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923; that even if there is any need for process through Court, it can only be by way of execution of the Award and such process has already initiated by the plaintiffs vide E.P.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.07 of 2009; that the plaintiffs cannot parallelly prosecute two remedies; and that the execution Court failed to consider and advert to the specific pleas of the revision petitioners / defendants. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners mainly contended that the award of the Lok Adalat in the present case is a final decree as the properties were divided by metes and bounds and possession was also delivered. He submitted the legal proposition that there can be any number of preliminary in a suit and that there are two stages in a suit for partition and the proceedings would conclude on passing the final decree and the distinction between preliminary decree and final decree was held, as noted below, by the Supreme Court in Mool Chand & others Vs. Deputy Director, Consolidation & others1. 1(1995) 5 SCC 631:AIR 1995 SC 2493 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 “15. The definition of "decree" contained in Section 2(2) read with the provisions contained in Order 20 Rule 18(2) as also Order 26 Rule 14 of the Code indicate that a preliminary decree has first to be passed in a partition suit and thereafter a final decree is passed for actual separation of shares in accordance with the proceedings held under Order 26. There are, thus, two stages in a suit for partition. The first stage is reached when the preliminary decree is passed under which the rights of the parties in the property in question are determined and declared. The second stage is the stage when a final decree is passed which concludes the proceedings before the Court and the suit is treated to have come to an end for all practical purposes.” He further submitted that the Award which is a final decree is not a valid instrument to act upon, as it was not registered and not duly stamped though it requires registration as per Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act, 1908, and liable to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899 and consequently cannot be acted upon as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act,1899 and therefore, it can be challenged at any stage. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Shahabia Begum Vs. Pukhraj Begum and others2, wherein it was observed at paragraph No.10 as follows: “… … … … … … … … … … …….In Kiran Singh & others Vs. Chaman Paswan & others [1955] 1 SCR 117, the Supreme Court observed: 2AIR 1973 Del 154 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 "It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." In the present case, there being a statutory bar against the Court acting upon the final decree without it being engrossed on a proper stamp, the Court had no jurisdiction to act upon the same and order the sale of the property. This order was, thus, an order passed without jurisdiction and was a nullity and its invalidity in the words of the Supreme Court, could be set up whenever and wherever it was sought to be enforced or relied upon.” He submitted that the award needs to be registered after filing non- judicial stamps worth as required and thereafter steps can be taken for the purpose of getting the award registered through Court and placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in Pilla Narasimhaswamy Patrudu and others Vs. Bank of Baroda3. 11. It is also submitted by him that since the award by itself is a final decree and not a preliminary decree, there is no question of appointing 3AIR 1982 AP 240 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 a commissioner as a step in aid of passing the final decree as though the award is a preliminary decree. He further submitted that an advocate cannot be appointed as a commissioner merely because there is a clause in the award for getting the boundaries fixed to the properties allotted to the plaintiffs and the said clause gives liberty to the plaintiffs and does not impose any condition or obligation on the defendants and that survey and fixation of boundaries is not a requirement for enjoyment of the fruits of the decree. It is also submitted by him that merely because in the counter filed by the revision petitioners, they volunteered to cooperate for the survey by the advocate commissioner, it has no significance in the above circumstances. He submitted that a petition to get the counter amended was dismissed and the petitioners were advised that they can raise the stand as proposed in the amendment, though the petition was dismissed as they are purely legal aspects, such as, the Award is a final decree, the Court becoming functus officio after passing the final decree as the award is not a preliminary decree, etc., and therefore, the revision petitioners are entitled to contend the court became functus officio after passing the final decree. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that till the award gets registered, the proceedings of final decree would continue and that any number of preliminary decrees or final decrees can be passed in a suit for partition and there is no period of limitation for passing final decree and referred to the decision of this High Court in 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 Karumanchi Venkaiah and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others4, wherein it was held at paragraph No.6 as follows: “6. It is also settled law that till passing of a complete final decree, the suit is deemed pending and so far as partition final decree to be applied and obtained concerned, there is no limitation. The Full Bench of Madras High Court in Ramasubramanya Pattar v. Karimbil Pati and others [AIR 1940 Madras 124] held that for obtaining partition final decree, based on preliminary decree, including for mesne profits claim under Order XX C.P.C, there is no limitation and the provisions of Limitation Act have no application much less Article 181 of the Limitation Act. Whenever the preliminary decree holder moves the Court, the Court is bound to enquire and grant in favour of the decree holder a final decree and a final decree application in a partition preliminary decree to work out the rights defined in the preliminary decree is merely in the nature of a reminder of what is still to be done. Further, the privy Council in Jadu Nath Ray v. Parameswar Mallik [AIR 1940 PC 11 (3 JB)] held that in a partition mortgagee of undivided share of parties to the suit though not a necessary party, should be allowed to attend and be heard at the stage at which working out the rights and making of proper allotment is affected in final decree proceedings as a person interested. It is further observed categorically that 42016 (6) ALD 618 10 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 in a partition suit even after a preliminary decree has been passed, it is still a pending suit and the rights of the parties who are added after the preliminary decree have also to be adjudicated at the time of passing final decree by taking consideration of the events subsequent to preliminary decree. In Chaknala Venkateswarlu v. Golla Anjaiah (died) L.R., Golla Kondiah [1979 (1) An.W.R. 243], this Court held referring to catena of expressions including of the Madras High Court and of the Apex Court in Mangal Singh and Others v. Rattno (died) by his L.Rs and Another [AIR 1967 SC 1786] on the scope of Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C that even in a suit for possession and profits decreed, it is a preliminary decree for ascertainment of the profits to be determined and the suit is thereby deemed to be pending and after decree if any of the defendants died, the legal representatives can be brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C but not under Rule 4 and question of applicability of limitation to bring legal representatives on record of such final decree proceedings does not arise for such legal representatives of deceased defendants can be brought on record at any time in the final decree petition for ascertainment of profits even the death is subsequent to preliminary decree. In Uppalapati Subrahmanyam Raju v. U. Sanyasi Satya Venkata Appala Raju & Others [2004 (2) An.W.R. 76 (A.P.)] : [2004 (1) ALD 550] it was held that there can be more than one preliminary decree and there can be more than one final decree even to say 11 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 where a supplemental final decree is made Court is not precluded to pass further final decree as there can be more than one final decree. In Gangalle Venkataiah v. Gangalle Yakaiah & Others [2003 (1) An.W.R. 66 (A.P.) : 2002 (6) ALD 653] it was held that for filing application after preliminary decree in a partition suit to pass a final decree there is no time of limitation that is applicable and even residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act has no application as partition suit would be deemed to be pending till a complete final decree is passed in respect of parties and with reference to all properties covered by the suit. It was further held that if it is a compromise decree in a partition suit finally settling the claim including working out rights by defining such compromise decree itself is a final decree and in such a case Court can appoint a Commissioner to affect delivery of possession. In Uppalapati Subrahmanyam Raju (supra), it was further held by this Court that even partition preliminary decree passed only defining the share of the plaintiff and not defining the shares of the defendants, defendants are entitled to seek for modification of the preliminary decree to define their shares also instead filing application directly to pass final decree in their favour for not defined their share in the preliminary decree, for the reason a specific defending of rights of the parties is required by preliminary decree and thereby a preliminary decree even sought for modification for passing any further relief including in favour of the defendants. It is observed in this context referring to the earlier expression of this 12 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 Court in Rahmatibi v. Makbul Bhanu that there can be number of final decrees passed in the partition suit. It also referred and relied for holding declaration relating to rights is essential in the preliminary decree in order to pass final decree in terms thereof and where such preliminary decree does not contain any declaration in favour of any party they can apply in relation to that to define for partition and separation of their share so as to apply there from for final decree. For that the Court also referred the earlier expression in K. Rangaiah Naidu v. K.V. Naidu [1986 (1) APLJ 272]. The Apex Court in Rachakonda Venkat Rao & Others v. R. Satya Bai (dead) by L.R & Another [(2003) 7 SCC 452] observed that in a suit for partition of immovable properties the Court has to define the shares of parties, after identifying the joint properties to be partitioned (generally as preliminary decree) then allocate the properties as per the respective defined shares and if necessary put the parties in possession after the properties so allocated to them (as per final decree). So far as compromise partition decree concerned, it all depends upon the terms of the compromise, as to the same is preliminary or final decree to determine therefrom.” He further submitted that the respondents are ready to get the Lok Adalat award registered through Court after complying the condition in the award regarding measurements which was agreed by both parties and therefore, the order of the Court impugned in the revision is only in accordance with the award passed. In continuation thereof, he 13 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 submitted that if there is any change in the extents on ground, it would be difficult later on as the disputes may arise out of the differences in the extent on ground and on record and therefore, to avoid such eventuality, a condition was agreed by both parties to get the properties measured. Therefore, he submitted that merely because the award was not registered, it cannot be ignored as the proceedings in the final decree are not concluded and that after getting the properties measured as per the award, a final decree can be passed in terms of the award and the same can be registered through process of the Court. It was also submitted by him that even if the matter is settled through Lok Adalat, the parties can be put in possession of the properties by appointing a commissioner and ultimately, quietus to the litigation can be secured by completely resolving the disputes between the parties. 13. Since the main dispute is regarding the nature of the award, whether it is a final decree or preliminary decree, it is necessary to examine the distinction between the preliminary decree and the final decree and also the contents of the award. No doubt, there can be many preliminary decrees in a suit for partition, before passing a final decree. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Chand (3rd supra), at paragraph No.15 noted above. 14. It is also apt to mention the decision of this High Court in Gangalla Venkataiah Vs. Gangalle Yakaiah and others5, wherein at paragraph No.9, it was held as follows: 52002 (3) A.P.L.J. 426 (HC) 14 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 “9. Explanation to Section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, which defines 'decree', lays down that a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of, and it is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit, and it may be partly preliminary and partly final. So in order to find out if the decree is preliminary or final, the decree itself has to be looked into, irrespective of the nature of the suit in which such decree was passed. So, without having regards to the terms and conditions in the compromise, merely because the compromise was entered into in a suit for partition, it cannot be said that it cannot be enforced without passing of a final decree. If the terms of the compromise show that nothing further need be done by the Court for enforcing the same, it is a final decree, and if some further proceedings are required to enforce the same, it would be a preliminary decree. In Raghubir Sahu Vs. Ajodhya Sahu [AIR 1945 Patna 482] (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent it is held that when the properties allotted to the share of each party are specified in the compromise decree, it is a final decree but not a preliminary decree, because nothing remains to be done, and it only has to be engrossed on a non-judicial stamp paper, and no time limit for engrossing the decree on a non-judicial stamp papers is prescribed. In Rahmat Bee & Others Vs. Maqbool Banu & Another [1989(2) APLJ 220] (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent it is held that 15 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 since a preliminary decree specifies shares and rights of the parties to the suit for partition, defendant also can file an application to get his share separated, as per the decree. In Salkia Businessmen's Association & Others Vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation & Others [AIR 2001 SC 2790] (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent it is held that Court should strictly enforce the terms of a compromise in a proceeding, which is finally disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties.” 15. As per Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh, by A.P. Act 4 of 1999, with effect from 01.04.1999, any decree or order or award or a copy thereof passed by civil Court, on consent of the defendants, or on circumstantial evidence, but not on the basis of any instrument which is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, such as registered title deed produced by the plaintiff, where such decree or order or award purports or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property requires registration.Certainly, an award passed by a Lok Adalat is a decree as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. If an award like a final decree in a suit for partition is passed by a Lok Adalat, the same also requires registration. The A.P. State Legal Services Authority also issued a circulars vide Roc.No.4019/LSA/2001, dated 06.08.2001 stating that the Awards passed by the Lok Adalat Bench should also be engrossed on non- judicial stamp papers, keeping in view the provisions of the Indian 16 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 Stamp and the Registrations Act and accordingly in respect of suits relating to partition and rendition of accounts, if settled through Lok Adalat, non-judicial stamps have to be necessarily deposited for engrossing at the time of seeking execution of such Awards through court of law; and ROC No:APSLSA/LSA/90-Corras/2007, dated 26.03.2007, instruction No.9 - IV (d) stating, among the other, that in an Award in partition suit, it should be specifically mentioned that the final decree obtained can have enforceability only when engrossed on proper stamp and registered. 16. Thus, each case is to be examined in the light of its own facts and circumstances to arrive at a decision as to whether a decree is a preliminary decree or a final decree. In the case on hand, the parties agreed before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed on 12.09.2015 with the terms as follows: “1. That the plaintiff and the defendant are present and that they compromised the matter in the presence of Lok Adalat today. 2. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit schedule properties. 3. That the defendants have agreed and allotted 1 acre of land to each of the plaintiffs in item No.4 of the suit schedule properties in Survey No.10 and 15 of Markapur village of Gokulapadu Mandal. Out of 1 acre allotted to each plaintiff, Ac.0.96 cents is situated in survey No.10 and Ac.0.4 cents is situated in Survey No.15. The rest of the land in item No.4 of plaintiffs goes to defendants. 17 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 4. That the possession of the land allotted to each of the plaintiff is delivered to them by the defendants and the plaintiffs have taken possession of the same. 5. The land allotted and delivered to each plaintiffs is described as follows: Item No.1:- Allotted to the first plaintiff measuring 1 acre in Survey No.10 & 15 together and bounded as follows ( in Sy.No.10: 0.96 cents, Sy.No.15: Ac.0.04 cents). East : Land in Survey No.8 West : Road and land in survey No.17 North : Land allotted to the second plaintiff in item No.2 South : Remaining land in said survey no. belonging to the defendants. 5. The land allotted and delivered to each plaintiffs is described as follows: Item No.1:- Allotted to the first plaintiff measuring 1 acre in Survey No.10 & 15 together and bounded as follows ( in Sy.No.10: 0.96 cents, Sy.No.15: Ac.0.04 cents). East : Land in Survey No.8 West : Road and land in survey No.17 North : Land allotted to the second plaintiff in item No.2 South : Remaining land in said survey no. belonging to the defendants. Item No.2:- Allotted to the second plaintiff measuring 1 acre in survey No.10 & 15 together and bounded as follows (in Sy.No.10: Ac.0.96 cents, in Sy.No.15: Ac.0.04 cents) East : Land in Survey No.8 West : Road and land in survey No.17 North : Land allotted to the third plaintiff in item No.3 South : Land in item No.1 allotted to the first plaintiff Item No.3:- Allotted to the third plaintiff measuring 1 acre in survey No.10 & 15 together and bounded as follows (in Sy.No.10: Ac.0.96 cents, in Sy.No.15: Ac.0.04 cents) 18 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 East : Land in Survey No.8 West : Road and land in survey No.17 North : Land allotted to the fourth plaintiff in item No.4 South : Land in item No.2 allotted to the second plaintiff Item No.4:- Allotted to the fourth plaintiff measuring 1 acre in survey No.10 & 15 together and bounded as follows (in Sy.No.10: Ac.0.96 cents, in Sy.No.15: Ac.0.04 cents) East : Land in Survey No.8 West : Road and land in survey No.17 North : Land allotted to the fifth plaintiff in item No.5 South : Land in item No.3 allotted to the third plaintiff Item No.5:- Allotted to the fifth measuring 1 acre in survey No.10 & 15 together and bounded as follows (in Sy.No.10: Ac.0.96 cents, in Sy.No.15: Ac.0.04 cents) East : Land in Survey No.8 West : Road and land in survey No.17 North : Land belonging to Sardar Basha and V. Raju South : Land in item No.4 allotted to the fourth plaintiff” 17. Though the parties agreed to take specific properties with reference to their boundaries, survey number and extent and possession thereof was also recorded as taken, they also incorporated 19 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 a term to get the boundaries the properties fixed as noted above. Therefore, the other terms such as division of property by metes and bounds and taking of possession cannot be read in isolation or by completely ignoring the other term for getting the boundaries fixed. Otherwise, it amounts to misreading of the award. A part of the award alone cannot determine its nature. Since the exact extent of the property is also one of the main requirements, a mere reference to approximate extent of the property in terms of award cannot make it final. Therefore, the extents of the property mentioned in the award shall be read in the light of the intention of the parties to get the extents measured. It is clear that though the award speaks that the properties were delivered to the parties, the parties are not sure of the extents mentioned in the award or else, there is no need to mention a specific term to get the properties measured. When the other terms of the award are read in the light of the term to get the properties measured, it is to be understood that the award has not attained finality and it shall only be regarded as a one more preliminary decree. Therefore, as soon as measurements are also taken with the assistance of an advocate commissioner after finalizing the extents with reference to the boundaries and survey numbers and other particulars of identity, a final decree shall be passed by the Court and get the same registered as per the procedure. 18. In view of the above discussion, the objection that the Award cannot be acted upon for want of registration of the award is not acceptable. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners also submitted that the parties are willing to get the award registered so as to make it legally enforceable, however, they opposed appointment of the commissioner for getting it measured and 20 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 for that purpose, they can challenge the enforceability of the award for want of stamp duty and registration. Moreover, the parties also expressed their willingness to get the properties measured by filing a counter and for the reasons best known to them, they have taken a ‘U’- turn and challenged the order impugned in the revision after it was passed. It cannot be now argue that it has no significance. They kept on changing the contentions and objections from stage to stage from the counter, argument before the execution court, grounds of revision to the final argument here. 19. The enabling clause in the Award to fix the boundaries may not create an obligation on the revision petitioners. But, it is not acceptable to contend that there is no need to get the boundaries fixed for enjoying the fruits of the decree in the light of the above discussion. 20. Of course, the parties are entitled to raise purely legal pleas or legal pleas based on the established case even without a specific plea earlier taken. Consequent to the above findings, the argument that the court became functus officio to proceed with any further steps on passing the Award in the nature of final decree is also not acceptable. 21. Since the execution proceedings are separately pending in E.P.No.4 of 2024, and is not the point now, it is not required to discuss anything about the challenge of the execution of the Award for want of registration and stamp duty, though it was mentioned in the grounds of revision by the revision petitioners that the plaintiffs can avail the process through court in execution proceedings of the Award for any assistance required to implement the term in the Award for fixing the boundaries. Taking recourse to the provisions of the A.P. Survey and 21 BSB, J C.R.P.No.252 of 2025 Boundaries Act, 1923 may be an other remedy, but not an obstacle in the step presently taken by the plaintiffs. 22. For the reasons already discussed above, this Court does not see any merit to interfere with the order impugned. 23. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.08.07.2025 RSD / RAR