KRISHNAVENI Vs. D RAGHAVALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation by the respondent.

(2.) THE revision is filed against the order passed by the Court below on an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 3 of the Partition Act (in short the "act" ). The Court has allowed the petition and the defendant, who is aggrieved against the order, seeks to set aside the same on the ground that the Court could not have directed the property to be sold only to the plaintiff and that the directions granted by the Court below are in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) IT is an admitted case where the decree has been passed on 18. 11. 2002 for partition of the property under the terms of which the petitioner and the respondent have been declared entitled to equal moieties. The Commissioner, who has been appointed to inspect the property for suggesting the mode of division, is said to have given a report, which, according to the petitioner, has not been made public. The impugned order of the learned District Munsif refers to the fact that the property is incapable of division. It is not discernible as to how the Court had come to such a conclusion or whether there was anything in the report of the Commissioner which has enabled the Court to come to such conclusion. The report of the Commissioner is meant only to the benefit of parties and the procedure to keep the report in a sealed cover is un-understandable. The Court below could not have passed that order without making the report of the Commissioner public and only if the property had been reported to be indivisible, either one of the parties could have worked out their rights under the Partition Act.