Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that before conducting the inspection of the property, no notice was given to him. It is also his contention that the ADLR, Hukkeri is appointed as Commissioner, but he has NC: 2023:KHC-D:12929-DB delegated powers to ADLR, Chikodi. In spite of it, the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the final decree petition.

6. He also submits that the trial Court has taken note of the very contention with regard to conducting of spot inspection and carrying out of commission work. Though the ADLR, Chikodi has conducted the commission work, the same is also taken note of by the trial Court by observing that he is also a competent person to conduct the inspection and the trial Court also observed that the very ADLR of Chikodi and ADLR of Hukkeri both are NC: 2023:KHC-D:12929-DB competent persons to divide the suit schedule property and the same is also drawn as per the preliminary decree.

7. Having perused the grounds urged in the appeal, the main contention is only on technicalities and no substantive ground is raised before the Court on the ground that prejudice is caused in conducting the spot inspection and the survey. No such contention is taken and the counsel for the appellant mainly relies upon the very contention of not issuing notice and also conducting of commissioner work by the ADLR of Chikodi. These contentions cannot be accepted and the Court has to see the substantive justice and not on technicalities and hence we do not find any error committed by the trial Court in partitioning the suit schedule property and the same is based on the Court Commissioner's report and the Court Commissioner is also a competent person who has conducted the spot inspection.