KEWAL BASO DEVI Vs. GANGOTRA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is by the defendants third set and is directed against the final decree passed in a partition suit. The plaintiff respondents first set brought a suit for partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit land. The defendants-first set and the defendants-second set also claimed 1/6th share each. The suit was decreed by the trial court against which a first appeal, which was numbered as F. A. No. 517 of 1958 was filed by the plaintiffs. That first appeal was decided on 19-9-196, and it was held in that case that the plaintiff-respondents first party, defendants-first party and the defendants second party each had 1/6th share in the properties in question whereas the remaining half belonged to the defendants-third set-appellants. Thereafter an application was made for preparation of final decree. A Pleader Commissioner was appointed and he filed his report along with a map showing the portion allotted to the parties. The report shows that the properties which had to be partitioned were 34 bighas 13 kathas 5 dhurs of agricultural land and 15 kathas 11 dhurs of homestead land. The Pleader Commissioner divided the lands in four categories. Category 'A' measured 2 bighas 16 kathas 9 dhurs which he valued at Rs. 2,000 per bigha. Category 'B' measured 3 bighas 4 kathas 9 dhurs and was valued at Rs. 1,600 per bigha. Five bighas one katha and 19 dhurs were Category 'C' lands which were valued at Rs. 1,500 per bighas. The last category, namely, Category 'D' measured 23 bighas 9 kathas 8 dhurs which according to the Commissioner valued at Rs. 1,200 per bigha.

(2.) The appellants filed an objection to the report. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the objectors confirmed the report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner and allotted the Takhta to the parties as indicated in the map. Aggrieved by the allotment, appellants had come to this Court.

(3.) Mr. Binod Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing in support of the case of appellants-first set contended that according to the report itself the lands in question valued at Rs. 53,636 but the land allotted to the appellants-first set valued only Rs. 26,312. Learned counsel says that thereby the appellants have been deprived of the land worth Rs. 506. He says that on this account the allotment of Takhta is not equitable particularly when the appellants have not been compensated in terms of money for lesser area. I do not think, learned counsel is correct. Roughly about 13 dhurs of Class I land has been taken out as rasta which has been kept common to all the parties. Roughly the value of the land kept as rasta will be about Rs. 1,000. The land, therefore, which had to be divided amongst the parties were valued only at Rs. 52,636 and the appellants who had half share had been given land worth Rs. 26,312. In the circumstance, they cannot make a grievance that the allotment made to them is for a value lesser than what was due to them.