1. These two Original Side Appeals are directed against the order in Application No.3730 of 2011 in C.S.No.398 of 2010 and the final decree dated 6 June 2012 in C.S.No.398 of 2010, whereby and whereunder after dismissing the application filed by the appellants for a direction to allot the entire property on valuation to them, the trial Court passed a final decree in terms of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner.

An outline of the facts:

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking partition of the common property into five shares and for separate allotment of one such share to him and thereafter to pass a final decree by dividing the property by metes and bounds.

3. The respondent in his plaint in C.S.No.398 of 2010 contended that the subject property originally belonged to Thiru M.V. Kannappan. It was a self acquired property. Thiru Kannappan died intestate on 21 March 1991. He was survived by his widow, the first appellant herein, other appellants and the respondent.

4. The respondent wanted partition and separate possession of his 1/5 share. The respondent called upon the appellants to take immediate steps to partition the property. The appellants even after receiving notice for initiating action for partition started putting up unauthorized construction with a view to retain the entire property. The respondent immediately filed the suit for partition. The respondent filed an interlocutory application in O.A.No.470 of 2010 to restrain the appellants herein from alienating or encumbering the property. He filed another application in O.A.No.439 of 2010 to restrain the appellants from putting up further construction. The Trial Court granted an interlocutory order on 15 June 2010 in O.A.No.439 of 2010 and thereby directed the parties to maintain status quo.

5. The respondent thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.811 of 2011 alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Court of first instance originally on 15 June 2010 and thereafter on 19 August 2010. The said petition was ultimately disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 7 June 2012. The learned Judge found that the appellants have violated the prohibitory order passed by the Court. However taking into account the relationship between the parties, the learned Judge had pardoned them and thereby closed the matter.

6. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree dated 22 December 2010 allotting 1/5 share to the respondent. Thereafter the respondent filed Application No.1426 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to partition the property by metes and bounds in accordance with the preliminary decree.

7. The Commissioner appointed by the Court submitted a comprehensive report indicating the modalities of division of property. The Advocate Commissioner prepared two share lists and plan. The Commissioner in one such share list, allotted 1/5 share to the respondent on the front side of the property. The Commissioner filed an alternative share list and plan allotting 654.48 sq.ft. on the back side of the suit property to the respondent.

8. The appellants herein during the currency of the final decree proceedings filed Application No.3730 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to determine the fair value of the property so as to enable them to purchase the right of the respondent.

9. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Advocate Commissioner has already arrived at a conclusion that the property is divisible and as such there is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to determine the fair value of the property once again to enable the appellants to purchase the entire property by giving money value to the respondent.

10. The learned Single Judge considered the alternative plan and share list and ultimately decided to allot back portion to the respondent. Since the back portion is comparatively of less value, the learned Judge accepted the suggestion made by the Advocate Commissioner that ten fee