Karnataka High Court
Shankar S/O Bhimappa Sanadi Alias ... vs Shri. Annappa S/O Ramappa Kankanwadi ... on 9 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100253 OF 2026 (FDP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANKAR S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI @
KANKANWADI,
SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS
1A. SMT. SONAWWA W/O. SHANKAR SANADI,
SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS
1. SRI. MAHADEV
S/O. SHANKAR SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. NIDASOSHI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI 2. SRI. ASHOK
S/O. SHANKAR SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
R/O. NIDASOSHI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
DIST: BELAGAVI.
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH
3. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. SURESH SANKPAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KESTI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
SRI. SHIVAMURTHY
S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI KANKANWADI,
SINCE DIED BY HIS LR'S.
4. SMT. GOURAWWA
W/O. SHIVAMURTHY SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NIDASOSHI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SRI. SANJU
S/O. SHIVAMURTHY SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSHI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI. SHIVAPPA
S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSHI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI. DUNDAPPA
S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSHI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. ADIVEPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSHI, TQ: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH MANE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
SHRI ANNAPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA KANKANWADI @ SANADI,
SINCE DIED BY HIS LR'S
1. SHRI SHIVARAJ
S/O. BASSAPPA KANKANWADI @ SANADI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 591201,
R/O. KALLOL, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. DEEPA W/O. SHIVARAJ PATIL,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O:- GADAHINGLAJ-416501,
DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
3. SMT. GOURAWWA W/O. LAGAMANNA MAJAGE,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HH,
R/O. NILAJAGI-416501,
TQ: GADAHINGLAJ, DIST: KOLHAPUR.
4. SMT. GANGAWWA D/O. APPANNA KANKANWADI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. NIDASOSI-591009,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI DUNDAPPA
S/O. NIJAPPA KANKANWADI @ SANADI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC:- AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NIDASOSI-591009,
A/P. MUTAGA, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SHRI GURULING
S/O. NIJAPPA KANKANWADI @ SANADI SINCE
DECEASED BY HIS (LEGAL HEIRS)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. SRI. MARUTI
S/O. GURULING KANKANWADI @ SANADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NIDASOSI, TALUKA: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591236
7. SHRI DURDUNDI
S/O. GURULING KANKANWADI @ SANADI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE 591009
R/O: NIDASOSI, TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591236.
8. SMT. AVVAKKA W/O. BHARAMA GARGOTI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSHOLD WORK,
R/O: KESTI, TALUKA: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. SMT. MAHADEVI
D/O GURULING KANKANWADI @ SANADI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NIDASOSI, TALUKA: HUKKERI-591009,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591236.
SMT. SONAWWA W/O. MARUTI KARAJAGI,
SINCE DIED BY HER LRS
SMT. LAKSHMAWWA W/O. APPASAHEB DHUBALE,
SINCE DIED BY HER LRS
SRI. SANTOSH S/O. APPASAB DHUBALE,
SINCE DECEASED LEFT WITH NO LEGAL HEIRS
SHRI ISHWAR
S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
10. SMT. MEENAKSHI
W/O. ISHWAR SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/HH,
R/O. GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK-591306,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
11. PRIYANKA D/O. ISHWAR SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. GHATAPRABHA-591306,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
12. SRI. PRASHANT
S/O. ISHWAR SANADI @ KANKANWADI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 591306
R/O. GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SMT. SHARAWWA W/O. BABU UMARANI,
SINCE DIED BY HER LRS (LEGAL HEIR)
13. SHRI RAMACHANDRA S/O. BABU UMARANI,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NANADI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
14. SHRI MAHADEV S/O. BABU UMARANI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NANADI, TQ: CHIKKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
SMT. SUGANDHA W/O. MAHADEV PATIL,
SINCE DIED BY HER LRS
15. SHRI JYOTIGOUDA S/O. MAHADEV PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGANUR, TQ: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
16. SHRI SIDDAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEV PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGANUR-591201,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
17. SHRI LAGAMANNA S/O. MAHADEV PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 591201
R/O. MANGANUR-591201,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
18. SMT. MALUTAI W/O. SRIMANT NAIK,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. NANADI VILLAGE-591201,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SMT. GANGUTAI W/O. LAGAMANNA PATIL,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
19. SHRI BALAGONDA S/O. LAGAMANNA PATIL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANGANUR-591201,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
NOW RESIDING AT KAMATNUR VILLAGE,
C/O. SHRI MALLAPPA SHANKAR ANKALI,
R/O. KALMESHWAR NAGAR KAMATNUR,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
20. SMT. SANGEETA W/O. UDAY KHOT,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 591237
R/O. MANUCCHAWADI, TAL: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
21. SHRI LAGAMANNA S/O. BALAGONDA PATIL,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MANGANUR, TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
DIST: BELAGAVI.
22. SMT. AMBABAI W/O. GANGARAM KHOT,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. SOLAPUR-591201,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
23. SMT. DUNDAWWA W/O. SHANKAR MADYAL,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. NIDASOSI-591009,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SMT. TARAWWA W/O. BABU KURANI,
SINCE DIED BY HER LRS (LEGAL HEIR)
24. SRI. BASSAPPA S/O. BABU KURANI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 591009
R/O. KAMATNUR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGWAD AND SRI. PRASHANT
MATHAPATI ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 TO R9)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REGULAR
SECOND APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI IN RA NO.5069/2024 DATED
06.03.2026, AND CONSEQUENTLY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE HUKKERI ITINERARY COURT AT SANKESHWAR IN FDP
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
NO.11/2021 DATED 19.09.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Even though the appeal is at the stage of admission, with the consent of both sides, heard arguments on merits.
2. Learned counsel for appellants, Sri Neelendra D Gunde would submit that the report submitted by the Court Commissioner is not in accordance with Section 54 of CPC. The ADLR was appointed as Court Commissioner, but Surveyor Commissioner has conducted the survey and prepared survey sketch and allotted shares to each branches. Thus, it is beyond the scope of Section 54 of CPC. Under Section 54 of CPC, it is the domain of Court to allot shares to each sharers and it cannot be delegated to any other person. It shall be conducted by the Court in accordance with law and if necessary, the report of the -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahasildar could be taken for assistance. However, in the instant case, the Court Commissioner himself demarcated the properties and allotted the properties to three separate branches and thus it is violative of Section 54 of CPC.
3. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.100266/2021 dated 30.01.2023 and RSA No.1434/2016 dated 03.09.2021 and RSA No.5001/2011 dated 16.02.2018. The Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have not examined the facts of the case as per Section 54 of CPC. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, Sri Santosh B Malligwad would submit that the Court Commissioner can take the assistance of Surveyor. Hence, merely because the Surveyor has conducted the commission work, the Commissioner's report cannot be thrown away. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.7189/2010 dated 27.03.2023. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for caveattors-respondents No.5 to 9, Smt.Sunanda P Patil would submit that while allowing the application for appointment of Court Commissioner, the Trial Court has appointed Taluka Surveyor attached to the Tahasildar/ADLR, Hukkeri and not the ADLR, Hukkeri. The said Taluka Surveyor has conducted the commission work and prepared survey sketch and showed three plots and he has only given proposal to allot Plot Nos.1, 2, 3 to each branches. Said proposal was accepted by the Trial Court and thus there is no violation of Section 54 of CPC. The same was accepted by the First Appellate Court verifying all these aspects.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 9 would further submit that already on 02.04.2026 itself respondents No.5 to 9 have taken possession of their share
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR and it is brought to the notice of the Executing Court on 06.04.2026. She has also produced certified copies of order sheet of the Executing Court with copies of Bailiffs' report, panchanama, possession receipt and other documents.
7. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 9 vehemently submitted her arguments that since 1990, appellants on one or the other reason are dodging the matter till today. The said judgment and decree of Trial Court was challenged before the First Appellate Court and before this Court and the matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and then the shares of respondents No.5 to 9 was confirmed. Even after filing of FDP petition, the present appellants are harassing respondents No.5 to 9 in dodging the case from not taking possession of the properties. Ultimately, as per the order passed in FDP No.11/2021 confirmed in R.A.No.5069/2024, respondents No.5 to 9 have taken possession of their share in execution petition.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 9 would further submit that the technical points raised by the appellants in this appeal were not raised before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. For the first time, they have raised this technical point in this appeal only to gain time. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal with costs.
9. On careful perusal of the submissions of both sides and on verification of TCRs. of Trial Court and First Appellate Court, appeal memo and documents produced along with appeal memo, the admitted facts are that FDP No.11/2021 is filed under Section 54 read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to appoint Court Commissioner to effect partition by metes and bounds in suit 'B' schedule properties and to prepare vataptakta(vatupatrika) and to give his report with map.
10. After filing this FDP petition, I.A.Nos.4 and 5 were filed praying for the similar relief. The Trial Court has passed orders on I.A.Nos.4 and 5 as per order dated
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR 24.06.2023, wherein one advocate by name Sri D.A.Mangasuli, advocate of Sankeshwar was appointed as Court Commissioner to affect division in respect of suit House schedule properties as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.172/1997 (old O.S.No.30/1990) dated 31.08.1991 and Taluka surveyor attached to Tahasiildar/ADLR, Hukkeri was appointed as Court commissioner for division in respect of suit agricultural properties as per preliminary decree.
11. Based on this order, the Advocate-Court Commissioner has submitted his report and also the Taluka Surveyor attached to ADLR, Hukkeri has submitted his report which was submitted to the Court along with covering letter of ADLR.
12. Considering this covering letter of ADLR, learned counsel for appellants vehemently submitted his arguments that ADLR has delegated his power to Taluka Surveyor and thus it is violative of Section 54 of CPC.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR
13. In RSA No.100266/2021 dated 30.01.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order by relying upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shivanna vs. Gowramma and Others in RSA 1434/2016, at para No.18 held as follows:
"18. This Court in the judgment and order dated 03.09.2021 passed in the case of SHIVANNA Vs. GOWRAMMA AND OTHERS in RSA.No.1434/2016 while dealing with an identical matter, at para Nos.10 and 11 has held as under:
"10. In this regard, I have carefully considered the Commissioners report produced in the paper book from page Nos.36 to 55. A perusal of page No.44 of the paper book would indicate that the Court Commissioners have not only divided the property in terms of the preliminary decree but have allotted each share to the respective parties. The said report of the Commissioners is contrary to Section 54 of CPC. In this regard, it is the duty of the Court Commissioners to see the feasibility of the division of property in terms of Section 54 of CPC. However, in the instant case, the Court Commissioners gone beyond the warrant of Commission and allotted the share in favour of the respective parties. However, the same has been accepted by the trial Court and same has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Perusal of the report of the Commissioners would indicate that same is not in terms of Section 54 of CPC, abdicates the power of the trial Court. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer paragraph 11 of the judgment
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR of this Court in Smt. Obamma's case (supra), which reads as under:
"11. In view of the amendment of Section 54 of Code of Civil Procedure by Act No. 36 of 1998 with effect from 1.2.2001, in all cases to which the amended provision applies, the "partition shall be made only by the Court and not by the revenue officer or the Commissioner". The Court if necessary on the report of the revenue officer not below the rank of the Tahsildar to enable to it to effect partition, it can effect partition on such report and Court Commissioner cannot make a division. In the present case, admittedly, the division is made by the Court Commissioner and not, by the Court. Therefore, the substantial question of law has to be answered in negative hoiding that the Final Decree Proceedings accepting the division made by the Court Commissioner is contrary to the amended provisions of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
11. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the aforementioned case and on re- appreciating the Commissioners report, which would indicate that the Commissioners ought not to have divide and allot the properties in favour of the respective parties in terms of the preliminary decree as it is the duty of the trial Court to allot the share in favour of the respective parties in the suit and the said action on the part of the Commissioners amounts to abdication of the duty of the trial Court, which is not permissible under Section 54 of CPC. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that accepting the said report by the trial Court in FDP is contrary to Section 54 of CPC, in view of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356
RSA No. 100253 of 2026
HC-KAR
the law laid down by this Court in the
aforementioned case."
14. Thus, in these two cases by interpreting Section 54 of CPC, relying upon the judgment in Smt. Obamma and Others vs. Sri Boraiah and Others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 4692, it is held that the Commissioner ought not to have divided and allowed the properties in favour of respective parties in terms of preliminary decree as it is the duty of Trial Court to allot the share in favour of the respective parties in the suit and the said action on the part of Commissioner amounts to abdication of duty of Trial Court, which is not permissible under Section 54 of CPC and thus the matter was remitted back to Trial Court.
15. In one of the aforesaid cases, the ADLR was appointed as Court Commissioner and he has delegated his power to his subordinate without the permission of the Court and thus the Co-ordinate Bench held that the commission work executed by the Taluka Surveyor, which was not by the ADLR is an error apparent on record and
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR illegality committed in it and those appeals were allowed and the matters were remitted back to Trial Court.
16. In the instant case, ADLR was not appointed as Court Commissioner but only the Taluka Surveyor who was attached to ADLR Office, Hukkeri was appointed as Court Commissioner. Under those circumstances, appointing Court Commissioner and submitting the report by the Court Commissioner is in accordance with law. In the instant case, the Court Commissioner has demarcated three shares in suit survey numbers and has also shown the allotment to each branch.
17. In this regard, the First Appellate Court in its order has made an observation at para No.20 as follows:
"20. It is though most vehemently argued on behalf of appellants that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the objection and evidence on record, there was no response from the side of appellants when the Contesting respondents gave an open offer to allot any of the share to any of the sharers, which is very much well within the powers of final decree Court as the reports of commissioners are mere proposals. Under the circumstances, it appears that the appellants are rather interested in merely prolonging the litigation rather than
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR bringing a fair and logical end to the litigation, although, the litigation is ever existing from the year 1990 and thus, went upto to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to the preliminary decree. Consequently, all grievances canvassed only for sake of mere continuation of litigation on pulpable grounds cannot be permitted to prevail over the substantial justice. Resultantly, all grievances of appellants being devoid of merits and substance would deserve no other consideration except rejection as there must be some logical end to the litigation. Moreover, the conduct of appellants before the trial Court as well as before this Court would clearly go to indicate that they are not ready to sit across the table and work out the amicable terms of division if at all they have really got any grievances with regard to mode of division or allotment of shares in equal proportion equitably. But all that they want is a mere prolonging of litigation one after another by adopting all the dubious modes just to circumvent the legally passed Order. In that view of the matter, the impugned Order directing to draw the final decree cannot be found fault with as there are absolutely or illegality being committed so as to call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the impugned Order under appeal being proper, correct and would deserve to be a error no possible one confirmed. With the above observation and for the reasons stated supra, I am inclined to answer the Point No. 1 in the negative."
18. It is not in dispute that the allotment of shares by the Court Commissioner was only a proposal and whether it is to be accepted or rejected is for the Court and the report itself is not final and not binding on parties. Under those circumstances, showing respective names in
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR the Commissioner's report and sketch is only a formality and it was accepted by the Court after rejecting the objections raised by the present appellants. At that time, the present appellants have not raised the technical objections which are raised presently. They have raised only the following objections:
1. That the area shown in PT Sheet does not tally with the area, which have been shown by the Court Commissioner.
2. The Court Commissioner has not valued the properties and has not divided it in accordance with law.
3. He has not verified the land's soil, fertility and nature of the land on the spot and other facilities that are available on the date of conducting this survey.
4. He has not considered the oral instructions given by these appellants.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR
19. What were the oral instructions given by the applicants is not mentioned in the objections to Commissioner's report. They have not raised objection as raised in this appeal. Even before First Appellate Court, no such objections were raised. Only for the first time in this appeal, the appellants have raised the objection to Commissioner's report that Commissioner was not authorized to allot shares to each party.
20. In this regard, as discussed earlier the contesting respondents in the appeal have given an open offer to allot any of the shares to any of the sharers, which was well within the powers of Final Decree Court as the reports of Commissioner is mere proposal. However, the appellants have not accepted this offer.
21. The conduct and attitude of appellants from 1990 shows that the intention of appellants is only to drag on the proceedings and not more than that.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR
22. Learned counsel for appellants has filed affidavit of one of the appellants stating that physical possession is not handed over to respondents No.5 to 9 as per the memo filed by them before the Executing Court.
23. Admittedly, since 1990 appellants and their branch are in possession of the entire suit schedule properties and only to drag on the proceedings, they have taken technical contention only in this appeal. Of course, the Court Commissioner was not authorized to allot any share to any of the parties in his survey sketch. However, it was always open to the Trial Court to accept the Commissioner's report or to reject it. If appellants are not satisfied with the portion shown as the appellant's portion, then they could have made submission before Trial Court that which portion is for them and which could be allotted to their share. However, they did not do so. This also shows the conduct and the attitude of appellants. Under these circumstances, acceptance of Commissioner's report by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is in
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR accordance with Section 54 of CPC and not against the said provison.
24. Under Section 54 of CPC, always it is open for the Court to take assistance of the Revenue Officer and it can take the report of Revenue Officer for demarcation, partition and to hand over separate possession.
25. Based on the findings in FDP petition which is confirmed by the first appellate court, the present respondents No.5 to 9 have filed execution petition. In that execution petition, the share of present respondents No.5 to 9 was handed over to them. Thus, the separate possession was handed over to respondents No.5 to 9 only through Court and not by the Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner has only given report by demarcating three shares and by saying that those shares be allotted to each branch. Always, it was open for the Trial Court to accept it or to interchange it. Trial Court accepted it and said acceptance is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5356 RSA No. 100253 of 2026 HC-KAR Definitely, Section 54 of CPC is followed in letter and spirit by the Trial Court and thus it needs no interference. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise in this case.
26. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE SH Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9