Legal dispute concerning the execution of a partition decree involving a sister's claim to her parents' property. It delves into the procedural aspects, particularly focusing on the role of the Court and the Collector in effecting partition of agricultural lands. The petitioner argues procedural irregularities and lack of natural justice in the partition process led by the Tahsildar, while the respondents counter that proper procedures were followed.

The procedures and laws related to partition suits, highlighting the roles of the Court and the Collector, criticism of the current system, and proposed improvements. It addresses the violation of procedure by the Tahsildar, interpretation of relevant rules, and provides a decision and directions to resolve the dispute. Finally, it concludes with the rule made absolute in specific terms and return of record and proceedings to Respondent No. 5 through learned A.G.P

1. Introduction and Initial Procedure:
• Rule made returnable forthwith with counsel's consent for final hearing.
2. Historical Reference:
• Cites a Privy Council case highlighting post-decree challenges faced by litigants in India.
3. Background of the Case:
• Details petitioner's pursuit of her share in parents' property since 1992, leading to a decree in 2006 with subsequent appeals.
4. Execution Process Initiated:
• Civil Court sends precept under Section 54 of CPC for partition, facing challenges in execution.
5. Contestation of Execution Process:
• Petitioner argues lack of natural justice and procedural irregularities in the partition process.
6. Violation of Rules and Rights:
• Petitioner asserts Tahsildar's actions violate rules and rights by not following prescribed procedures.
7. Legal Precedents Cited by Petitioner:
• Supports arguments with legal precedents, emphasizing necessity of final decree before execution.
8. Counter Arguments by Respondent:
• Respondent argues proper procedures were followed and petitioner's objections are delaying tactics.
9. Clarification on Notice and Final Decree:
• Petitioner contends notices for measurement were served but notice for preparing partition chart was not.
10. Importance of Final Decree:
• Reiterates necessity of final decree before execution, citing legal precedent and proper sequence of procedures.
11. Supreme Court Decision on Limitation:
• References Supreme Court case discussing applicability of Limitation Act to applications for final decree.
12. Key Question Raised:
• Central question posed is whether Collector can effect partition without final decree.
13. Supreme Court Analysis on Limitation Act:
• Supreme Court's interpretation of Limitation Act in similar case provided for legal context.
14. Conclusion and Implications:

Concludes with unresolved legal question and implications of ongoing dispute for execution of partition decree.