9. The above discussion points to considerable authority in favour of the proposition that in a partition suit whereas a preliminary decree finally determines the shares of parties, the final decree is when the court decides on the basis of the evidence led, whether and to what extent the partition of properties is to be effectuated by a sale. This determination is finally dispositive of the suit and is deemed to be a decree under Section 8 of the Partition Act. There may be myriad situations, entirely fact dependent, with infinite variations, such as cases involving multitude of properties, settlement of accounts or mesne profits for the interregnum and pendent lite period or periods, dispute over movables etc. that may require court intervention on a close "hands on" basis. This involvement however, necessarily is part of the execution process. The suit ends with the final decree that gives expression to the rights that crystallize in the preliminary decree. Any other interpretation would as correctly commented, by Justice Mehta, be straining the language of Section 8 by boggling the imagination and refusing to accept its plain and contextual meaning. The decree cannot be like a curate's egg (a thing that intrinsically cannot answer two disparate descriptions or perform contradictory functions), i.e. a decree for something and not a decree for another.
