DALJIT SINGH Vs. CH HUKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom a final decree in a partition suit has been passed on the basis of the report of the local commissioner.

(2.) Hukam Singh filed the suit for possession by partition of immovable property against Hari Chand and Daljit Singh consisting of various houses. A preliminary decree was passed on November 23, 1972. Application to pass a final decree for partition of one-third plaintiff's share was filed on January 28, 1973. Earlier, one Shri Amar Singh, Advocate, was appointed as the local commissioner to suggest the mode of partition. He submitted his report on December 14, 1973. Daljit Singh defendant filed objections against his report on the ground that it was partial and biased. The learned trial Court vide order dated February 8, 1979, set aside the said report of local commissioner on the ground that it was not just and equitable as Daljit Singh, defendant, was ready to pay Rs. 25,000/- extra if the portion which was allotted to Hukam Singh was surrendered to him. Accordingly, another local commissioner, Shri T.P. Singh Bedi, Advocate, Karnal, was appointed as a local commissioner vide order dated February 21, 1979. He submitted his report, Exhibit D2 dated August 23, 1980. Daljit Singh, defendant, again filed his objections to his report and stated that the local commissioner had not taken into consideration the suggestions made by him and that the best way for him was to put to action amongst the co-sharers, the three portions carved out by him and should have alloted the portion to the highest bidder. He also stated that he was prepared to pay Rs. 20,000/- to Hukam Singh in case the portion allotted to him (Hukam Singh) was given to him. According to his allegations the proposed mode of partition was highly undesirable, unfair and inequitable and as such liable to be set aside. Objections to the said report of the local commissioner were also filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Hari Chand, deceased defendant. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) The main argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that after partitioning the property in three portions, the local commissioner should have drawn lots instead of allotting the portions according to his choice. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ramappa v. Subrava,1915 AIR(Mad) 1171 It was further contended that it was the duty of the Court to allot the shares and not of the local commissioner. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Ghansham Lal v. Bali Nath Syal,1944 PunLR 372.