( 1 ) THIS Appeal has been preferred against the final decree dated 07-06-1995 passed in i. A. No. 182 of 1983 and 183 of 1983 in the suit O. S. No. 96 of 1978 on the file of the iii Additional Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS 1 to 6 are the defendants in the suit. The 6th defendant although died on 30-04-1984 was shown in the array of the appellants. Appellants 7 to 15 are the legal representatives of the deceased second appellant. Appellant No. 16 is the legal representative of the deceased first appellant. First respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 are the defendants 7 to 9 in the suit. Respondents 5 to 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent. Respondent nos. 12 to 15 are the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent-Plaintiff.

( 3 ) IT is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suit for better understanding and to avoid any confusion.

( 4 ) THE suit was filed for partition as aforesaid claiming 1/16th share each by the plaintiff and defendants 7 to 9 who are all daughters of the sixth defendant and her late husband Abdul Kareem. Defendants 1 to 5 each is entitled to 1/8th share being the sons. The defendant No. 6 being the wife of late Kareem was entitled to 1/8th share. The quantum of the shares to which the parties are entitled to is not in dispute inasmuch as each of the heirs under the provisions of Mohammedan Law is entitled to a defined share. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the suit schedule house-bearing No. 3272 be divided into sixteen equal shares and allotment of 1/16th share to the plaintiff, and possession also be given thereof to the plaintiff. The decree was also passed in favour of the plaintiff for past and future mesne profits to be determined on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed i. A. No. 182 of 1983 under Order 20 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code for passing the final decree of dividing the property by metes and bounds and after conducting enquiry in regard to the past and future profits in terms of the preliminary decree. I. A. No. 183 of 1983 was filed seeking appointment of a Commissioner for effecting division of the property.

( 5 ) INITIALLY a Commissioner was appointed in I. A. No. 183 of 1983 and that commissioner divided the property into four units and submitted his report on profits also. Since he had not worked out the equities and apportionment of the payments to be made by each party, another Commissioner was appointed and that Commissioner submitted his report. The second Commissioner had taken the assistance of a valuer for evaluating the property. The Commissioner as well as the valuer were examined as witnesses during the course of the enquiry. Upon considering the evidence available on record and the reports filed by the Commissioners, the court below ultimately passed the final decree. While passing the final decree, the court directed that the plaintiff and her three sisters, namely, Defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together be given 1/4th share as each of them is entitled to 1/16th, and they be given unit 1, adding 1/8th share of D-6, their deceased mother. The Court further directed that the defendants 1 to 5 who are entitled to 1/8th share each be allotted unit nos. 2 to 4. The Court further directed that the plaintiff and defendants 7, 8 and 9 should pay the difference amount of rs. 78,060. 05 ps. to the other defendants. The decree further directed that the plaintiff and defendants 7 to 9 are entitled to the profits at the rate of Rs. 126. 50 Ps. per month each from 26-12-1977 till the date of delivery with interest at 12% p. a. Having been aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants filed the present Appeal.

( 6 ) SRI E. Manohar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, except Appellant No. 3, contends that the allot