Parties may submit objections to Court Commissioner reports in final decree proceedings, allowing for reconsideration of oversight in property partition cases.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 passed in F.D.P. No.10/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, Itinerary Court at Sankeshwar (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Trial Court’), as well as the consequent final decree dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record.

3. Respondents having been served with the notice of this appeal have chosen to remain unrepresented and have not contested the appeal.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S. No.194/2021 seeking partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs.

5. It is a matter of record and undisputed fact that the suit ‘A’ schedule properties comprised of item Nos.1 to 16 being landed and agricultural properties, while suit ‘B’ schedule properties consisted of items Nos.1 and 2 being house properties. By judgment and decree dated 03.09.2022, the Trial Court decreed the suit thereby allotting 1/6^th share in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs in both suit ‘A’ schedule properties and suit ‘B’ schedule properties. The preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the parties, the appellants/plaintiffs instituted the instant final decree proceedings in F.D.P. No.10/2022 to enforce and implement the said preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court. In the said final decree proceedings, the Trial Court issued notices to the respondents/defendants who remained ex parte and did not contest the final decree proceedings. The appellants/plaintiffs filed interlocutory applications – I.A. Nos.II and III under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to demarcate and effect partition of suit ‘A’ schedule properties and suit ‘B’ schedule properties. Accordingly, The Tahasildar/ADLR, Hukkeri was appointed as Court Commissioner to effect division of suit ‘A’ schedule properties - landed properties, and a report in this regard was submitted by the Court Commissioner to the Trial Court. Similarly, one Shri. S.D.Padmannavar, and Advocate of Sankeshwar was appointed as Court Commissioner to effect division of suit ‘B’ schedule properties being the house properties, who submitted a report to the Trial Court in this regard. Before the Trial Court, the appellants/plaintiffs chose not to file any objections to the reports of both the Court Commissioners as a result of which the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order accepting the reports of both the Court Commissioner and directing drawing up of final decree in terms of the reports submitted by the Court Commissioners.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned final decree only insofar as it relates to suit ‘B’ schedule properties (house properties), the appellants/plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, submits that though there were several errors/discrepancies in the report of the Court Commissioner as regards the suit ‘B’ schedule properties (house properties) and that the appellants intended to file objections to the report of the Court Commissioner, due to oversight and inadvertence, the appellants/plaintiffs did not submit any objections to the report of the Court Commissioner, which was noticed by the appellants/plaintiffs only at the time of filing execution proceedings. It is submitted that the appellants/plaintiffs intend to file their objections to the report of the Court Commissioner in relation to