Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand contended that an amendment is introduced by the Karnataka State to Section 54 of CPC, which provides that the partition of the estate shall be effected by the Court after obtaining a report of a revenue officer, not below the rank of Tahsildar or such other person as the Court may appoint as Commissioner. He submitted that the question raised by the defendant No.2 in this appeal is raised for the first time and no such contention was either raised before the Final Decree Court NC: 2024:KHC-D:1411 or before the First Appellate Court. He contends that division was based on the report of the Assistant Director of Land Records (henceforth referred to as 'ADLR'), who also is of the rank of the Tahsildar and possession of the property was handed over based on a sketch that was accepted by the Court. He therefore, submits that there is no error warranting interference of this Court.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased - defendant No.2 and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the defendant No.2 did not raise above contention before the Final Decree Court or before the First Appellate Court. Be that as it may, since the defendant No.2 has raised a question of some relevance, the same needs to be considered.

9. A perusal of records of the Final Decree Court would indicate that the Final Decree Court had sought for a report from the Tahsildar regarding partition of the suit properties in accordance with the preliminary decree. On the request of the Tahsildar, the ADLR had prepared a sketch of the suit property and divided it as per the preliminary decree that was passed in NC: 2024:KHC-D:1411 O.S.No.985/1993. The defendant No.2 appeared before the Tahsildar on 06.09.2002, 19.02.2002, 26.10.2002 and based on the sketch submitted by the ADLR, the Tahsildar submitted a report before the Final Decree Court. The contention of the defendant No.2 could have been accepted, if the report itself was submitted by an officer who was not the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar did not delegate his responsibility to any other officer but sought assistance from the department of survey to draw up a sketch to scale, partitioning the properties. What is contemplated under Section 54 of CPC is a report of a revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar and to prepare such a report, the Tahsildar can obtain inputs from various sources. Therefore, the contention of the defendant No.2 that Tahsildar had sub-delegated his duty to ADLR and that ADLR had in turn sub-delegated his duties to the surveyor, is of no consequence. Under the circumstances, unless it is pointed out by the defendant No.2 that the Final Decree drawn did not correspond to the shares declared in O.S.No.985/1993, the defendant No.2 cannot assail the correctness of the division effected by the Final Decree Court.