ANANTA RAMAPPA Vs. SUBRAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE see no reason to interfere with the order of the District Judge. WE are not prepared to follow the decision in Narsingh Narain Singh v. Harkhu Singh 8 C.L.J. 521 if it intends to lay down that the casting of lots for the purpose of allotting shares to the parties is opposed to Order XXVI, Rule 14. WE think the most equitable way by which properties could be assigned to co-parceners will be to draw lots after dividing the properties with reference to the number of sharers. That has been done in this case and we find no justification for holding that that procedure is unwarranted or illegal.

(2.) THE appeal is dismissed with costs.