ORDER :

1. The applicants are the defendants in the Suit in C.S.No.240 of 2019. The respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit. In the above Suit, this Court has passed a preliminary decree for partition on 19.06.2019. The preliminary decree reads as follows:

“That 1.R.Selvi, 2.C.S.Geethalakshmi, 3.Radhika Santhanakrishnan alias S.Radhika and 4.Vasanthi Udayasuryan, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 herein shall be entitled to 1/4th share of the suit properties more fully set out in the Schedule of the plaint”.

2. After granting of preliminary decree, this Court directed that the parties are at liberty to apply for final decree. Subsequently, the applicants herein had filed A.No.6322 of 2019 to pass final decree for partition of the Suit Schedule 'A' property by metes and bounds. Along with the said application, another application in A.No.6321 of 2019 was filed by the applicants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the Suit Schedule 'A' Property and divide the same by metes and bounds into four shares and allot the shares to the applicants/defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff.

3. In response to the application filed by the applicants, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the Schedule 'A' property and file his report, vide order dated 06.11.2019. The Advocate Commissioner, after giving notice to the parties, inspected the property on 16.11.2019 and filed his report dated 20.11.2019 before this Court. The plaintiff, being not satisfied with the report of the Advocate Commissioner, has filed her objections dated 20.11.2019. The objection of the plaintiff was that the Advocate Commissioner's report sated that the Suit Property cannot be equally divided due to the nature of physical features and it was impossible to fairly divide the Suit Property into four equal shares, by equal value by metes and bounds. The Advocate Commissioner concluded that the sale of the property and distribution of the sale proceeds equally would be more beneficial for all the shareholders.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff strongly objected to the conclusion reached by the Advocate Commissioner and therefore, requested this Court to review the entire matter afresh for the reason that the plaintiff / respondent strongly believes that the Schedule Property can be divided equally. The plaintiff has sentimental value to the property, as she is residing in the property for several years and being an ancestral one. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent, valuation was also not properly done by the Advocate Commissioner and therefore, the plaintiff was prevented from buying out the shares of the other co-sharers of the property.

5. Taking note of the above objections, this Court appointed an another Advocate Commissioner on 19.04.2021. The second Advocate Commissioner, after inspecting the property, has filed a detailed report dated 29.07.2021. As far as the second Advocate Commissioner's Report is concerned, it was concluded that the property can be divided as per the plan provided by the Valuer, but considering the market value after the division, the value of the land as a whole would be diminished by as much as 36%. The second Advocate Commissioner reasoned as “inevitable conclusion is that the subject property is capable of divisibility but with losing its commercial real estate value”. The value of the property was also assessed by the Advocate Commissioner as Rs.11,54,00,000/- as against the earlier valuation of the First Advocate Commissioner at Rs.8,81,000/-.

6. The plaintiff/respondent herein has once again come out with her objections to the second Advocate Commissioner's report also both on the valuation arrived at and also on the conclusion that if the property is divided, it will lose its real estate value to the extent of 36%, as indicated above. The objection regarding the valuation of the property stated in paras 3 and 4 are extracted hereunder:

“3. I respectfu