Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Perusing the earlier order in I.A.No.308/2015, the first direction was to provide 8 feet width pathway to the plot to be set apart towards the share of the plaintiff. In Ext.C2 plan, 8 feet width pathway is provided after allotting 'A' plot towards the share of the plaintiff on the extreme southern part on the south-west side after leaving the other plot with road access as a compact plot including the house and car shed overlapping therein for the other 2025:KER:9377 RFA NO.252 OF 2018 sharers. The Commissioner assessed the value of the property towards other sharers at Rs.1,30,000/- per cent in accordance with the market value as per the plaint averments, though he fixed land value for the property allotted to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per cent. In fact the Commissioner complied condition No.1 as per order in I.A.No.308/2015.

9. According to the learned counsel for defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5, while fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- the property allotted to the plaintiff is shown as property having a value of Rs.1 lakh. According to the learned counsel for defendant 1, 3,4 and 5, the same is not proper assessment by following the principles of equity. Whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiff justified the same on the submission that the plot allotted to the plaintiff is on the extreme back side of the entire property without any direct road access. Thus the value is reasonably reduced. In this case, it is discernible that the share entitled to by the 2025:KER:9377 RFA NO.252 OF 2018 plaintiff is only 14/192. After litigating for the same starting from the year 1998 (year of the earlier suit), for getting separate shares, ultimately, as a feasible methodology, 2.49 cents located as plot 'A' in Ext.C2 plan is set apart towards the share of the plaintiff after providing 8 ft width pathway starting from the public road on the northern side abutting the entire property as directed in I.A.No.308/2015. Therefore, it could not be held that fixing the value of Rs.1 lakh as the market value of the property allotted to the plaintiff, which has no direct road access, is in any way without following the principles of equity. Therefore, the said challenge would fail and thus the Commissioner complied the second direction also.