Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.
1. The respondent plaintiffs filed a suit for partition. It was pleaded that the parties had purchased a two storeyed kothi and land described in the plaint from one Parshotam Singh Chopra. This was in pursuance of sale deed dated 22nd Nov. 1963. At that point of time, the property was in possession of tenants. Later on, the relation between the parties got strained. They sought partition of the property.
2. The plaintiffs were claiming 3/5th share in the property whereas, the defendant appellants herein were claiming one half share. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was to the effect as to whether the present appellants who figured as defendants in the suit were entitled to half share of the disputed property. Evidence was led and a preliminary decree was passed holding that the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to 3/5th share in the suit property and the remaining 2/5the share was to go to the present appellants i.e. Amir Chand and Lal Chand in equal shares.
3. With a view to give effect to the preliminary decree, a Commissioner Was appointed. The Commissioner gave his report. Objections were taken on record. The District Judge, Jammu, considered the issue and noticed that limited objections were raised to the report of the Commissioner. One objection was that while demarcating, the boundary wall should not be treated as common as it would be a source of further litigation. Both the parties agreed that this issue can be settled and it was agreed that the plaintiff respondents would pay a sum of Rs. 1000 to the defendants and the common wall shown in the site plan would be exclusively owned by the plaintiffs. There was also some difference with regard to the opening of the doors. This was also settled. Both the sides agreed that they will close the doors. The dispute with regard to the amount of compensation for the portion which was given in excess to the plaintiff respondents was also settled. The amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 3000. Both the parties agreed that this should be fixed at Rs. 4000. The appeal was decided accordingly.
4. In this appeal, it is urged that it is factually incorrect that the property was to be divided in the ratio of 2:3. It is urged that the property should have gone half by half. It is further submitted that the compensation with regard to the wall has been fixed on the lower side.
5. Before taking note of the grievance of the appellants, it would be apt to notice that when a preliminary decree is passed and the same is allowed to become final, then whatever has been urged at the time of initial stage in the preliminary decree cannot be made subject-matter of challenge when final decree is passed. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to a latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkatrao Anantdeo Joshi and Ors. v. Sau. Malatibai and Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 7295/2002, decided 15.11.2002. The dispute in the above case was similar i.e. with regard to the share in the property. The share was determined in the preliminary decree. It was accordingly held that as no appeal was filed against preliminary decree, the same cannot be permitted to be agitated again. The issue involved in this case would be squarely covered by the ratio of decision given by the Supreme Court in the above case.
6. So far as other issues raised in this appeal are concerned, a perusal of the judgment under appeal indicates that the three bones of contention were settled and the judgment makes mention of the fact that this was done on the basis of concensus arrived at. If the parties had agreed to a certain situation, then it is too late now to let them agitate this matter again. This appeal as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed.