V SATHISH Vs. RADHA V BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 2009 challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2008 made in Application Nos.669, 670 and 671 of 1991 respectively, while APPEAL Nos.202 and 203 of 2009 challenge a common order dated 20.04.2009 made in Application Nos.29 and 30 of 2009 in C.S.No,783 of 1985, a suit for partition.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the said suit for partition filed Application No,669 of 1991 to pass a final decree with reference to the schedule mentioned property being Item No,2 of the Schedule 'A' to the plaint, by dividing the same by metes and bounds and allotting the specific portions to the petitioner and respondents, while Application No,670 of 1991 to pass a final decree in respect of Item No,3 of Schedule 'A' and Application No,671 of 1991 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to prepare a plan and divide the schedule mentioned property by metes and bounds and allot 1/6th share to each of the parties.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the learned single Judge found that the second suggestion found in the last report of the Advocate commissioner was acceptable since it was beneficial to the parties and in so far as the third item of 'A' schedule property is concerned, there was no dispute for partition of the same, according to their respective share. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that in respect of the share of the mother, the 1st defendant, the rival claims were made by the parties on the strength of two Wills and thus, it was the subject matter of litigation and hence, the learned single Judge ordered that 1/6th share of the deceased 1st defendant should be kept apart till the litigation with respect thereto comes to an end and thus, the learned single Judge made an order that the superstructure of the property in item 2 of 'A' Schedule property should be demolished by entrusting the same to a contractor, after getting approval from the concerned authorities that the sale proceeds should be divided in equal shares by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 to 6 and in so far as the site of item 2 of 'A' Schedule property is concerned, it should be divided into 6 plots of equal extent confirming to the Development Control Rules of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and such plots shall be allotted to each of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 to 6 after drawing lots. For the said purpose, Mr.M.Soundarapandian, former District and Sessions Judge was appointed as Advocate Commissioner, with whom all the above works were entrusted, namely, the demolition of superstructure by entrusting the same to the Contractor and converting the same into vacant land and also dividing the site into 6 equal plots and also dividing the shares found in item 3 of 'A' Schedule property into 6 equal shares and if fractional shares were found, they were to be sold in stock market and the sale proceeds shall be divided equally among the parties. Aggrieved over the above common order, Appeal Nos.17, 18 and 19 have been preferred by the 3rd defendant.