PABBATHI VENKATARAMAIAH CHETTY Vs. PABBATHI N RATHNAMAIAH CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS No. 454 of 2006 This is an appeal preferred by D. 1 against passing of the final decree in I. A. No. 140 of 2000 in O. S. No. 3 of 1996, on the file of II Additional District Judge, madanapalle, Chittoor District dated 2. 6. 2006 approving the report of the Advocate commissioner dividing the suit schedule properties in terms of preliminary decree and to handover respective shares to the plaintiffs and the defendant.

(2.) THE essential facts leading upto this appeal are as follows :

(3.) THE 1st plaintiff the father and the 2nd plaintiff the son filed the suit against the 1st defendant another son, the appellant herein and others, for partition of the plaint schedule non-residential premises by name sree Lodge, a three storied structure bearing D. Nos. 13/293, 13/294 and 13/295 into three equal shares and for possession of two such shares to them. The father and sons purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 5. 5. 1966 and constructed the lodge after obtaining permission from the municipality. The suit was decreed entitling the plaintiffs 2/3rd share and 1st defendant l/3rd share by a preliminary decree dated 15. 2. 2000. The plaintiffs thereupon filed I. A. No. 140 of 2000 for passing a final decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner and directing him to divide the suit property as per the terms of the preliminary decree. The appellant did not oppose by filing any counter. On that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. He inspected the plaint schedule building and submitted his report suggesting division of the building. The appellant herein did not file any objection. The plaintiffs filed objections requesting re-entrustment of the warrant to note details of measurements etc. After hearing both sides, the learned judge had directed that an inspection be made with the assistance of a municipal surveyor, and note the measurements etc.