After nearly 15 years of legal battle, a woman finally won her share in a joint property (she held with her husband in Jabalpur), which had been in the possession of another man through a will prepared by her husband before his death.The Supreme Court, in its order, said that since she has a 50% share in the joint property and her request for partition, the plea must be granted, as it was proved during the trial. However, since the property is too small for physical partition by metes and bounds, the court ordered it to be auctioned, and then money distributed among the owners according to their respective shares. As per the Will, created by her late husband, the other person holds the rest 50% share in the joint property.What led to this property dispute?Jennifer (the Appellant) and Peter Messias got married in 1980. In 1991, the couple purchased a flat in Civil Line, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, with their combined income. However, in 2003, the couple separated, and the court divorce order came in 2004. During their divorce, Peter Messias was in possession of their property on the Civil Line, Jabalpur. However, Peter died on March 26, 2014.After Peter’s death, Leonard G. Lobo (the Respondent) came forward, claiming to represent Peter’s interests on the basis of a registered Will dated March 22, 2014, executed by Peter. The court, however, did not examine the nature of the relationship between Peter and Leonard since the matter was a civil case.Leonard G. Lobo (the Respondent) has since then remained in possession of the property he claims through the late Peter’s Will. Feeling aggrieved, Jennifer (wife) filed an appeal (Civil Suit No. 7A/2011) for partition and separate possession of the subject matter. On April 13, 2012, the Trial Court passed a Preliminary Decree. The trial court said:1.(A) It is declared that Jennifer is entitled to a partition of the property on the Civil Lines, Jabalpur, and to obtain possession of her one-half share. (B) Jennifer is entitled to receive mesne profits of Rs 1,500 per month in lieu of rent for her share of the property from the date of filing the suit till the date of taking possession of her one-half share. 2.And it is further ordered and decreed be and is hereby appointed as Commissioner to make partition of the said property according to the shares given above. That if the said Commissioner finds that partition cannot be made equal between the parties according to their respective rights without prejudice to the rights and interests of some of them, he shall report the amount of compensation to be made by the parties for the quality of partition.However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had twice interfered with the execution of the partition decree passed in Jennifer’s suit. When the advocate commissioner said that the property could not be partitioned by metes and bounds because physical division of the property was impracticable, the executing court ordered a public auction of the property. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court interfered and held that the decree was merely a preliminary decree and therefore could not be executed unless a separate final decree was first drawn up. Feeling aggrieved, Jennifer filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court on May 18, 2026, passed an order in Jennifer’s favour and said that merely because no separate application for passing a final decree under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, a preliminary decree would not become inexecutable. The court said that this is especially true in cases where the decree itself provided that the property should be auctioned if partition by metes and bounds was not possible, thereby giving the decree the character of a final decree as well, reported LiveLaw.Supreme Court order and discussionThe Supreme Court said that the high court made an error in interfering with the execution of the decree, despite preliminary decree attaining the status of the final decree, upon the Commissioner’s report which stated that the property cannot be physically partitioned as it was too small.The Supreme Court said that since the preliminary decree had adjudicated the rights and entitlements between the parties, including the mesne profits, then it was impermissible for the Madhya Pradesh High Court to seek a separate application by Jennifer for seeking a final decree, ignoring the fact that the preliminary decree became final upon failure to hold the partition by metes and bounds, as the only option that survived then was an open auction sale of the suit property to provide the respective share of the parties, reported LiveLaw.The Supreme Court said that the conclusion reached by the high court is that, before putting the same to execution, a final decree is necessary. The decree dated April 13, 2012, for all purposes, determined the entitlement or right to possession, mesne profits, and the first option regarding the mode and manner of working out the shares in the event of default in the sale of the subject matter. The direction to file a fresh application after the passing of a final decree is completely unwanted. Order: The Supreme Court said that the decree is to be construed as final for the ends of justice to be met and thus allowed Jennifer’s appeal and restored the execution court’s order for conducting the auction and apportioning the money between Jennifer and Leonard.