THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.177 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been directed against the final decree dated 21.02.2014 in I.A.No.50 of 2013 in I.A.No.81 of 2010 in O.S.No.800 of 2006 on the file of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby house property bearing D.No.1-2-607/23/2/1D situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Indira Park, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') was divided in equal shares in terms of preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. The appellant herein is respondent No.1, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are petitioners and the respondent No.4 herein is respondent No.2 in the final decree proceedings.
3. The main grievance of appellant is that the Court below blindly accepted the report of advocate commissioner without observing feasibility and non-profitability of division of suit property. The final decree was passed accepting the advocate commissioner's report by dividing the suit property into four equal shares, as per the preliminary decree.
2
ML,J CCCA_177_2016
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared and there is no representation for respondents.
5. In the light of the above submissions made by learned counsel for appellant the following point emerged for consideration before this Court:
"Whether the Court below committed any irregularity in accepting the advocate commissioner's report in passing the final decree?"
Point:-
6. It is not in dispute that by virtue of preliminary decree all the four parties to the suit were ordered for entitlement of 1/4th share each, over the suit property. In execution of said preliminary decree, the present application was filed seeking final decree. During the course of the final decree proceedings, the Court below appointed the advocate commissioner and he submitted his report showing possible division of suit property into four equal shares, in terms of preliminary decree.
7. Admittedly, appellant, who is aggrieved by the final decree, has not filed any objections to the report of advocate commissioner. He did not make any open offer to the other share holders for purchasing the entire suit property.
3
ML,J CCCA_177_2016
8. Before the Court below, no share holder has claimed that equal distribution of the suit property on account of division is disadvantageous to them. The Court below having found that no share holder was having any grievance for division has passed final decree accepting the report of advocate commissioner. Further, no objections were filed by any of the party to such report. In the said circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. According, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the final decree dated 21.02.2014 in I.A.No.50 of 2013 in I.A.No.81 of 2010 in O.S.No.800 of 2006 on the file of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 05.12.2022 GVR