R. RAMAN Vs. R. NANTHAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court, by an order dtd. 15/11/2023, has appointed an Advocate Commissioner and he inspected the suit property and filed a report suggesting the mode of division.

(2.) It is suggested in the Advocate Commissioner's report that the parties are not disputing with regard to the share as per the Will and the plaintiff is residing in the entire first floor of the building. The defendants 1 and 2 agreed to take their share together without making any division, so that, there cannot be any division in respect of their shares. Since the plaintiff been residing in the entire first floor, his portion also fall on the shares of the defendants 1 and 2. It is the suggestion of the learned Advocate Commissioner to the effect that if the dividing wall was put up in the portion shown in the plan namely, DEC, the plaintiff can conveniently enjoy the portion of his share and the division can stay forever. It is also pointed out by the learned Advocate Commissioner that, already that portion was divided by pucca concrete wall previously. However, the said wall has been removed for convenient enjoyment of the entire first floor. Hence, it is suggested by the learned Advocate Commissioner that if the wall has been put up, the plaintiff can enjoy his share, as per the Will, as shown in the plan annexed in the report Page No.7.

(3.) The only grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff before this Court is that since the building is old, putting up a retaining wall as extra wall may not be feasible. Therefore, according to him, the building should be demolished and sold.