1. This appeal No. 172 of 1924 is against the final decree passed in partition suit. The points urged by Mr. Seshagiri Sastri for the appellants are that the Commissioner was not justified under the warrant of commission to award to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,400 against defendants 1 and 2, and that he was not justified, in dividing the trees in such a way as to inconvenience defendants 1 to 3.

2. After the passing of the preliminary decree a Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties between plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 3. The Commissioner divided the properties, and with regard to houses which are items 1 and 2 in Schedule C (1) he said:

As the defendants houses are good ones, as the plaintiffs house has to be built anew, defendant 2 shall pay Rs. 1,000 and defendant 1 Rs. 400 to plaintiff 2.

3. This observation of the Commissioner, Mr. Seshagiri Sastri contends, amounts to an award which he was not authorised So make under Order 26, Rule 14, Civil P.C. The first para. 14 (1) is:

The Commissioner...if authorised thereto by the said order, award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalising the value of the shares.

4. We do not think that the Commissioner i