Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Respondent No.1 in FDP No.20/2015 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Dharwad has preferred this Regular First Appeal against the order passed in the said FDP No.20/2015 dated 04.11.2024 to draw final decree as per the report submitted by both the Court Commissioners.

2. The suit in O.S.No.66/2010 was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and it was decreed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed final decree proceedings in FDP No.20/2015 for drawing up of the final decree. The trial court appointed the ADLR as Court Commissioner for division of the agricultural lands and also appointed the Advocate Court Commissioner for division of the house properties. It appears that the ADLR NC: 2025:KHC-D:1817-DB deputed the Taluk Surveyor for measurement and partition the properties, in accordance with the preliminary decree. Accordingly, the Taluk Surveyor issued notice and in the presence of the parties to the proceedings measured the property and gave report to the ADLR and thereafter, the ADLR submitted the same report to the court.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1817-DB

5. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 preferred this appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for both side parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court has appointed the ADLR as Court Commissioner for measurement of the property and division of the agricultural lands and submit the report. Contrary, to the said directions, the ADLR delegated said task to Taluk Surveyor. The said Taluk Surveyor measured the suit property and submitted the report to ADLR. The ADLR submitted the said report to the court. The trial court did not look into the said aspect and blindly accepted the report submitted by the ADLR. The ADLR has no authority to delegate the power given by the court to his subordinate. In view of the same, the said report is not tenable.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the court has appointed the ADLR as Court Commissioner for measurement and division of the property. The ADLR had taken the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor to measure the property. The Taluk Surveyor measured the suit property, prepared the map and submitted the report to the ADLR. On the basis of the said report, the ADLR has submitted his final report to the NC: 2025:KHC-D:1817-DB court. Therefore, he has not delegated his power to the Taluk Surveyor.

14. On perusal of the material placed on record and the trial court records, it is borne out that the trial court has appointed the ADLR as Court Commissioner for NC: 2025:KHC-D:1817-DB measurement and division of agricultural lands mentioned in the preliminary decree. Similarly, appointed Advocate as a Court Commissioner for measurement of the house properties mentioned in the preliminary decree. It appears that the ADLR delegated his duty of Court Commissioner to the Taluk Surveyor, to issue notice and in the presence of the parties measure the property and submit the report. Accordingly, the Taluk Surveyor issued a notice and in the presence of the parties to the proceedings, measured the properties mentioned in the preliminary decree. The Taluk Surveyor partitioned the properties as per the preliminary decree and forwarded the said report to the ADLR. Thereafter, ADLR submitted very same report of the Taluk Surveyor with his covering letter to the court.