The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Court to record valid reasons before scrapping an Advocate Commissioner's report and the legal principles for appointing a second Commissioner.

(Civil Revision Petition is against the order and decreetal order made in I.A.No. 1242 of 2003 in O.S.No.60 of 1991, dated 28-11-2003 by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.)

This revision is directed against the order of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, made in I.A.No. 1242 of 2003 in O.S.No. 60 of 1991 dated 28-11-2003, scrapping the earlier report of the Advocate Commissioner and directing the second Defendant to file a separate petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for division of the suit 'A' Schedule property.

2. O.S.No. 60 of 1991:- The Plaintiff and Defendants are brothers and sisters. Their father L.Jayaraman died intestate in the year 1970. Their mother Chandra Bai also died intestate in the year 1986. Their brother Murali also died intestate and unmarried in the year 1983. Claiming 81/378th shares in 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties and 1/7th share in the 'C' Schedule property and to render account of the income, the Plaintiff has filed O.S.No. 60 of 1991. A preliminary decree for partition was passed in O.S.No. 60 of 1991.

3. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to divide the 'A' Schedule property and the Plaintiff was allotted a share of 81/378 (or) 4.66 acres in the 'A' Schedule property. The Commissioner has filed his report allotting an extent of 3.46 acres worth Rs. 1,90,200/- in items 4, 32, 33, 38, 9 and 10.While so allotting the above extent, the Commissioner had taken into consideration the actual possession of the items of properties by the parties, valuation of the properties and such other aspects.

4. I.A.No. 1242 of 2003: The second Defendant has filed this application raising objection as to the allotment of 4.04 1/2 acres as against entitlement of 3.46 acres. Objecting to the allotment of one electric motor pump set, the second Defendant has filed this Application for scrapping the report of the Advocate Commissioner on the ground of unfair distribution.

5. Objecting to the Application, the Plaintiff has filed the counter statement contending that the mode of allotment of the property suggested by the Commissioner is fair without affecting the possession of the other parties. The Commissioner has taken note of the value of the land and the access to the land and other aspects. The petition has been filed to scrap the Commissioner's Report and to appoint another Advocate Commissioner only to delay the allotment of the lawful legitimate share to the Plaintiff.

6. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application scrapping the earlier Report. The lower Court was of the view that in the interest of justice one more chance is to be given to the Petitioner/second Defendant to file a petition to appoint fresh Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to allot the share to the parties in accordance with the preliminary decree. The learned Subordinate Judge was also of the view that appointment of fresh Advocate Commissioner would in no way prejudice the Respondent.

7. Aggrieved over the impugned order scrapping the earlier report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Plaintiff has preferred this Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the Commissioner has taken into consideration the value of the land, possession of the parties and such other aspects. It is submitted that without recording any reasons the order of scrapping the report is unsustainable. Contending that the trial Court has committed a serious error in scrapping the Report without any valid grounds, the learned counsel urged for setting aside the impugned order. In support of his contention that Report of the second Advocate Commissioner cannot be scrapped without recording the reasons, the learned counsel has relied upon the Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1985 KERALA 83 (SWAMI PREMANANDA Vs. SWAMI YOGANANDA)

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent sub