(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) The suit property is two storied building having two blocks and such blocks are connected by corridor. The northern block is under occupation of the plaintiffs/respondents and the southern block is under occupation of the principal defendant/appellant. There is no dispute that a preliminary decree was passed in the Partition Suit where it was declared that the plaintiffs have fifty percent share in the suit property and the defendant also has fifty percent share in the suit property. The preliminary decree was passed in the year 1974 and in terms of the said decree a partition Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report after holding the commission work. Unfortunately, the report had to be rejected since the learned Commissioner who was initially appointed to do the commission work died and another learned Commissioner was appointed who submitted a final report after holding the commission work and in terms of such report the learned Trial Court decreed the suit being Title Suit No. 61 of 1998.
(3.) The learned Trial Court found that the major portion of the entire premises is let out to different tenants and partition, on the basis of possession of the parties and according to their convenience, cannot possibly be done. The plaintiffs did not file any objection to the Commissioner's report and prayed for acceptance of the Commissioner's report. The principal defendant/appellant feud her objection to the Commissioner's report and submitted that the property is partible. The learned Trial Court found that there is no inconsistency or contradiction in the learned Commissioner's report and according to the said report the suit property cannot be partitioned equally according to the respective possession and convenience of the parties and the passage between the two blocks also cannot be partitioned. The learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 29.06.1998 decreed the said suit.