ORDER :

P. Rajamanickam, J.

(Heard through Video Conferencing)

1. CRP. No. 1633 of 2020 has been filed by the respondent/defendant against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, in I.A. No. 3 of 2019 in O.S. No. 25 of 2009 dated 15.06.2020.

CRP. No. 2035 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, in I.A. No. 3 of 2019 in O.S. No. 25 of 2009 dated 15.06.2020.

2. The respondent in CRP. No. 1633 of 2020 and the petitioner in CRP. No. 2035 of 2020 had filed a suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, for partition of the suit properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to her and other reliefs. The learned Principal District Judge, by the judgment dated 20.03.2019 had passed a preliminary decree declaring that the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the suit properties and also granted permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from proceeding with the registration of settlement deed dated 10.10.2008.

3. After passing of the said preliminary decree, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A. No. 3 of 2019 in O.S. No. 25 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties as per the preliminary decree and pass a final decree. The defendant had filed a counter opposing the said application on the ground that as per Section 54 of CPC and also under Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC, only the Collector has to divide the property in respect of the agricultural lands and hence the said application is not maintainable before the civil court.

4. The learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, by the order dated 15.06.2020 had rejected the contention of the defendant and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties as per the preliminary decree passed in the said suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed CRP. No. 1633 of 2020. The plaintiff has filed CRP. No. 2035 of 2020 as the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, ought to have passed an order to ascertain the profits from suit 'A' and 'C' schedule properties and to divide the same between the parties.

5. When both these CRPs came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. Teekaraman, the learned counsel for the defendant relying upon the decision in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna Vs. Sita Saran Bubna and Others (2009) 9 SCC 689 contended that as per Section 54 of Civil Procedure Code ('CPC' for short) in respect of the agricultural lands, the civil court, after passing of the decree declaring the rights of the parties, should have sent the decree to the District Collector to divide the properties. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent in CRP. No. 1633 of 2020/plaintiff relying on the decision of this court in Kaliannan Vs. Sangeeta, 2020 (5) CTC 69 contended that Section 54 of CPC would not apply to Ryotwari Tenure and hence the decree need not be sent to the District Collector to divide the properties. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. Teekaraman has not agreed with the views taken by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subramanian in Kaliannan Vs. Sangeeta (cited supra) and hence he directed the Registry to place the matter before My Lord The Hon'ble The Chief Justice for placing the matter before a Division Bench to determine the procedure that has to be followed in respect of Section 54 of CPC and Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC in the matters of partition suit. Accordingly, the matter was placed before My Lord The Hon'ble The Chief Justice. My Lord The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has passed an order to post this matter before this Bench for answering the reference.

6. Heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP. No. 1633 of 2020/respondent in CRP. No. 2035 of 2020 and Mr. V.K. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent in CRP. No. 1633 of 2020/petitioner in CRP. No. 20