Sign in Subscribe
Code Of Civil Procedure

Jennifer Messias v. Leonard G. Lobo 2026 INSC 502 - CPC - Decree - Partition Act

CaseCiter

• 2 min read
Share

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 2(2) - Partition Act, 1893 - Section 2– 4 - An Order made under Sections 2 to 4 of the Partition Act is also a deemed Decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the CPC. There is no need to file an Application under Order 20 Rule 18 of the CPC seeking a Final Decree

Case Info

Here’s the information extracted from the judgment on your current page.


Basic Case Details


Case name: Jennifer Messias v. Leonard G. Lobo


Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 502


Coram:

  • K.V. Viswanathan, J.
  • S.V.N. Bhatti, J. (author of the judgment)

Judgment date: 18 May 2026 (New Delhi)


Case law and citations referred

  1. Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande, (1995) 3 SCC 413
  2. Bimal Kumar v. Shakuntala Debi, (2012) 3 SCC 548
  3. Renu Devi v. Mahendra Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 200 : AIR 2003 SC 1608
  4. Rachakonda Venkat Rao v. R. Satya Bai, (2003) 7 SCC 452 : AIR 2003 SC 3322
  5. Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355
  6. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, (2022) 16 SCC 71
  7. Hameed Joharan (relied on by the High Court; full citation not set out in the excerpt, but referred to on executability of preliminary decrees)

Statutes / provisions referred

  1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
    • Section 2(2) – definition of “decree”
    • Order XX Rule 12 – decree for possession and mesne profits
    • Order XX Rule 18 – decree in suit for partition / separate possession
    • Order XXVI Rule 14 – Commission for partition (mentioned via High Court’s directions)
    • Section 144 – referenced within the definition of “decree” in Section 2(2)
  3. Partition Act, 1893
    • Sections 2 to 4 – orders under these provisions treated as a deemed decree within Section 2(2) CPC (referred to in the Court’s reasoning)

Three‑sentence brief summary


The Supreme Court considered whether a decree dated 13.04.2012 in a partition suit over Flat No. 101, Amba Apartment, Jabalpur, was merely a preliminary decree or, in substance, both preliminary and final so as to be executable. Holding that the decree conclusively determined the parties’ shares, entitlement to possession, mesne profits, and provided the mechanism of sale and distribution if partition by metes and bounds was impossible, the Court found that the High Court had erred in treating it as non‑executable and in insisting on a separate final decree application. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, restored Execution Case No. EX‑A‑1600007/14, directed fresh auction of the flat with participation of the parties and adjustment of mesne profits, and ordered the trial court to complete the process within two months given the decree-holder’s advanced age.