The court upheld the partition and equitable distribution of property based on the Commissioner's report, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolution in family disputes.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri. Shathabish Shivanna for the appellant.

None appears for the second respondent.

2. First Defendant Sri. C.M. Medaiah who is the father of the plaintiff namely Sri. C.M. Poonacha is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. Facts which are at most necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

The first respondent Sri. C.M. Poonacha filed a suit in O.S. No.27/2006 for partition and separate position of his share in the suit property. Suit on contest came to be decreed.

4. To seek the partition of the suit property by metes and bounds, final decree proceedings in FDP No.7/2012 was filed In the Final Decree Proceedings, after entertaining the objections, learned Trial Judge appointed an advocate as Court Commissioner on 06.12.2012. Said advocate Court Commissioner visited the suit property by issuing notice to the parties. Parties were present when the Court Commissioner carried out the spot inspection and divided the property in the presence of the parties and prepared the panchnama and the sketch with colour codification.

5. Court Commissioner filed the report on 30.07.2016 along with revenue sketch, survey PP sheet, mahazar, notices issued to the parties and the Commission warrant.

6. Present appellant represented by his advocate filed objection stating that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttam vs. sowbhag Singh, final decree proceedings for was not maintainable.

7. He also objected that Commissioner did not identify each survey number and therefore report cannot be accepted. However, for the reasons best known to the appellant did not choose to cross-examine the Court Commissioner by filing necessary application or seeking permission of the Trial Court.

8. Thereafter, arguments were heard by the learned Judge in the Final Decree Proceedings and by considered judgement dated 06.03.2018, learned Judge allowed the Final Decree Proceedings.

9. Operative portion of the Final Decree Proceedings reads as under:

"The Final Decree Proceedings filed by the petitioner is decreed.

The Commissioner report and Sketch is part and parcel of the Final Decree.

The block No.I, V and VI allotted to the share of plaintiff. The block No.II, VII to X allotted to the share iof defendant No.1. The block No.III, IV and XI allotted to the share of defendant No.2.

In house property is concerned, 'A' part mentioned in the sketch allotted to the share of plaintiff. 'B' part allotted to the share of defendant No.1 and 'C' part allotted to the share of defendant No.2.

Draw final decree as per above on furnishing requisite stamp paper by the parties.

However, it is made clear that, if the parties have not taken possession of their respective shares in suit properties they are entitled to file execution petition to recover possession.

The parties are liberty to file another final decree proceedings in respect of item No.5 of preliminary decree i.e., Sy.No.165/4 after taking possession as per law."

10. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant herein challenged the Final Decree in R.A.No.9/2018. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal inter alia held in paragraph number 14 to 20 as under :

"14. It is the specific contention of the appellant/respondent-1 that the suit schedule properties are the properties going to the shares to the a