Appeal against preliminary decree becomes untenable after an unchallenged final decree, leaving no effective relief available.

An appeal against a preliminary decree in a partition suit was held incompetent after a final decree had already been passed without challenge. The Court applied the principle that the right to appeal from interlocutory orders ends with disposal of the suit, and treated it as equally applicable where the suit proceeds from preliminary decree to final decree. As the final decree was not appealed, relief against the preliminary decree alone would have been ineffective and would indirectly unsettle an unchallenged final decree. The appellant's failure to challenge the final decree was therefore fatal to maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against a preliminary decree in a partition suit remains maintainable after a final decree has already been passed without challenge.

Analysis: The appeal was held to be incompetent because, once the final decree had been made, the right to challenge the preliminary decree could not be pursued in isolation. The Court applied the principle that the right of appeal from interlocutory orders ceases with the disposal of the suit, and treated that principle as equally applicable where the suit proceeds first to a preliminary decree and thereafter to a final decree. Since the final decree had not been appealed against, setting aside the preliminary decree alone would not afford effective relief and would indirectly undermine an unchallenged final decree. The Court also noted that the appellant had the opportunity to appeal against the final decree but did not do so.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed with costs.

---