admittedly Narayan Mishra got three sons, namely, Ram Jatan Mishra, Shiv Jatan Mishra and Ram Bihari Mishra. The plaintiff and defendants are sons of Ram Jatan Mishra and intervenors are sons of Ram Bihari Mishra. Shiv Jatan Mishra died unmarried and he gifted his property in favour of Ram Jatan Mishra. A suit was filed in the year 1974 between sons of Narayan Mishra and preliminary decree was prepared on 09.09.1974 but no final decree was prepared. It is submitted that on the basis of preliminary decree there was partition between Ram Jatan Mishra and Ram Bihari Mishra and they were in exclusive possession of their land but later on legal heirs of Ram Jatan Mishra filed the present suit for partition in which legal heirs of Ram Bihari Mishra filed petition for intervention and in spite of the fact that on the basis of preliminary decree the property was partitioned and they have came in peaceful possession the intervention petition was allowed but I find that suit for partition was filed in the year 1974. Preliminary decree was prepared but no final decree was prepared carving out Takhta of three sons of Narayan Mishra and, therefore, there was no partition by metes and bounds. On such facts, the learned Sub Judge has rightly allowed the petition of the respondents to be impleaded as defendants in the suit for partition with regard to property of Narayan Mishra. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this Civil Misc. petition and the same is dismissed.
