The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to cases of manifest perversity, grave dereliction of duty, or flagrant violation of law, and cannot be invoked to reassess facts or act as an appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This O.P.(C) is filed challenging Exhibit P6 order dated 02.02.2021, in I.A.No.179 of 2018 in I.A No.437 of 2016 (FDA) in O.S No.106 of 2013, on the files of the Subordinate Judges Court, Perumbavoor. Petitioners are the respondents in Final Decree Application No.437 of 2016 filed in O.S.No.106 of 2013.

2. Petitioners had filed I.A.No.179 of 2018 in I.A. No.437 of 2016 (FDA) in O.S.No.106 of 2013, seeking to set aside the Commission report and survey sketch filed by the Advocate Commissioner appointed for effecting partition of the decree schedule property in accordance with the preliminary decree dated 03.09.2015 passed by the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. By Exhibit P6 order dated 02.02.2021, the court below partly allowed the said application and remitted the report to the Advocate Commissioner to correct the valuation of the entire plots and buildings in the plaint A and B schedule properties. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the court below failed to consider the specific objections raised by them regarding the allotment of shares to the respondents, and erred in accepting the survey sketch, overlooking the valid objections raised by them.

3. Heard Sri.M.K.Dileepan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Paul K.Varghese, the learned counsel for the respondent in detail.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the court below erred in passing the Exhibit P6 order, insofar as it rejected the petitioners’ prayer in I.A.No.179 of 2018 to set aside Exhibit P2 Commission report in toto and to call for a fresh report after proper consideration of the petitioners’ objections relating to the allotment of share to the respondent. The impugned order, to the said extent, is unsustainable in law and liable to be interfered with. According to the learned counsel, the allotment of plots 5A and 5B in Plan No.1 attached to Exhibit P2 Commission report towards the respondents’ share is manifestly unjust and improper, as the said plots are located on the southern and western sides of the residential building of the 2nd petitioner. Such an allotment, it is submitted, seriously affects the 2nd petitioner’s convenient access to, use of, and enjoyment of the residential building, and causes substantial prejudice and hardship. It is further submitted that the property comprised in Re-survey No.159/4 is lying as a single contiguous plot of dry land, and in such circumstances, there was absolutely no justification for the Commissioner to allot the respondents’ share by carving out plots 5A and 5B in an irregular and inconvenient shape. Furthermore, the respondents’ share, it is submitted, could and ought to have been allotted on the northern side of the Tharavadu building in a regular rectangular form, which would have ensured a fair, convenient, and equitable division of the property without causing avoidable detriment to the petitioners. It is contended that the Exhibit P6 order was passed by the court below on a wrong appreciation of evidence. The observation of the court below that PW1, the Advocate Commissioner, deposed that allotment of share to the respondent could not be done on the northern side of the Tharavadu building as there was a level difference, is contrary to the evidence on record. In fact, PW1 had deposed that plot Nos.2, 5A and 5B in Plan No.1 are lying on the same level as a single plot.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, while effecting partition, the Advocate Commissioner is bound to ensure an equitable division