P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.

1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiff challenges the final decree for partition. The plaintiff in terms of preliminary decree was entitled to one out of six shares. In the final decree certain properties were proposed to be allotted to him by Amin Commissioner. The plaintiff objected to the proposal made by the Amin Commissioner by contending that there has been no proper valuation of the shares and the allotments were inequitable, that the whole of the prime lands available for partition having commercial importance, were allotted to defendant Nos. 4 to 7 alone and that the division proposed was unjust and against the fundamental principle, that the properties should be valued and each sharer should be allotted properties of equal value. The Trial Court did not accept this contention and proceeded on the basis that the lands were non-transferable and therefore, their potential value was irrelevant and allotment was just. Thus, a final decree was passed.

2. The plaintiff challenged the final decree in an appeal. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that without valuing the properties and the shares at least notionally, there could be no equitable