Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Heard the leaned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

- 12 -

12. A short point that arise for consideration for the purpose of answering substantial questions of law is "Whether the appointment of the ADLR by the Trial Court and authorizing the ADLR to effect partition is in- consonance with the provisions of law."

13. Section 54 (Karnataka Amendment) of the CPC reads as under:

"54. Partition of estate or separation of share.- Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share of such an estate shall be made by the Court in accordance with the law if any, for the time being in force relating to the partition or the separate possession of shares and if necessary on the report of a revenue officer, not below the rank of Tahasildar or such other person as the Court may appoint as Commissioner in that behalf."

counsel for the appellants has submitted that the ADLR is an officer below the rank of the Tahashildar, it is however clarified that his rank is equal to the rank of Tahashildar. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of RAMESH Vs. VISHNU AND OTHERS in W.P.No. 106672/2018 disposed of on 25.08.2021, wherein this Court on an identical situation, has held that the rank of ADLR is equal to that of the Tahashildar, therefore, the said contention of the appellants would not survive for consideration. However, the further reading of the provision of Section 54 of the CPC makes it abundantly clear that even though the Civil Court is authorized to appoint a Revenue Officer and obtain a report, the division of property and allotment of share has to be carried out by the Court itself and the same cannot be delegated even to the Court Commissioner appointed under Section 54 of the CPC.

16. In the instant case, as seen from the records namely the final decree proceedings and the

- 15 -

Commissioner's report, which forms part of the decree passed by the Trial court, includes a sketch showing the division of the property. Perusal of said sketch reveal that same has been prepared by the Taluka Surveyor and is counter signed by the ADLR. Pointing out the same, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the ADLR had apparently further authorized/delegated the responsibility to the Taluka Surveyor to carryout and execute the commission work which otherwise ought to have been done by the ADLR. Thus, he submits that at the first instance, delegation of the authority by the Civil Court to the ADLR to effect the partition itself was contrary to Section 54 of the CPC (Karnataka Amendment) and in the teeth of the said illegality, the ADLR could not have further delegated the power to the Taluka Surveyor to survey the land and effect partition, as seen from the annexure to the decree.

19. In view of the above facts and situation and legal aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court erred in authorizing ADLR-Court

- 18 -

Commissioner to effect the partition to execute the commission work and to submit their reports and the said ADLR had further committed an error and illegality in authorizing the Taluka Surveyor to carryout the task assigned to ADLR.

20. The apprehension of the appellants that the measurement and the value of the property not having been considered cannot be overruled more so when the Court which is obligated to draw the final decree and effect the partition based on the report of the Revenue Department, has delegated the said power at the hands of ADLR. Such a course of action is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Consequently, the following: