(M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

This appeal challenges a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.S.No.1009 of 1993 granting a preliminary decree.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition, and on trial, a preliminary decree came to be passed by the learned Single Judge declaring the rights of the parties. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 5 to 8 have brought forth this appeal.

3. On the earlier occasion, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the parties brought to the notice of the Court that the properties need not be sold, and they want to enjoy the same. Hence, with the consent of the parties, this Court appointed a retired District Judge as Advocate Commissioner to value the property and file a report.

4. Now, the Advocate Commissioner has valued the property and filed his report before the Court. The parties were given opportunity to file their objections. They have filed so. This Court perused the report of the Advocate Commissioner and also the objections made by them.

5. Now, at this juncture, the value of the property has got to be fixed. After hearing the submissions made on either side, looking in