Telangana High Court
A. Chandra Kumar vs Smt. D. Meena Kumari on 5 December, 2022
Bench: M.Laxman
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.
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.
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
