PADMANABHAN Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of II additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, made in I. A. No. 1242 of 2003 in o. S. No. 60 of 1991 dated 28-11-2003, scrapping the earlier report of the advocate Commissioner and directing the second Defendant to file a separate petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for division of the suit'a'Schedule property.

(2.) O. S. No. 60 of 1991:- The Plaintiff and Defendants are brothers and sisters. Their father L. Jayaraman died intestate in the year 1970. Their mother Chandra Bai also died intestate in the year 1986. Their brother murali also died intestate and unmarried in the year 1983. Claiming 81/378th shares in'a'and'b'Schedule properties and 1/7th share in the'c'Schedule property and to render account of the income, the Plaintiff has filed O. S. No. 60 of 1991. A preliminary decree for partition was passed in O. S. No. 60 of 1991.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the impugned order scrapping the earlier report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Plaintiff has preferred this revision Petition. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the Commissioner has taken into consideration the value of the land, possession of the parties and such other aspects. It is submitted that without recording any reasons the order of scrapping the report is unsustainable. Contending that the trial Court has committed a serious error in scrapping the Report without any valid grounds, the learned counsel urged for setting aside the impugned order. In support of his contention that Report of the second Advocate Commissioner cannot be scrapped without recording the reasons, the learned counsel has relied upon the Division Bench decision of the kerala High Court reported in AIR 1985 KERALA 83 (SWAMI PREMANANDA Vs. SWAMI yogananda)