The main legal principle established is the fair allocation of properties in a partition case, the use of modern technology for addressing concerns, and the entitlement to easement of pathway for agricultural lands.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Order XLI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Final Decree in I.A.No.395 of 2011 in O.S.No.108 of 2008 dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Principal District Court, Villupuram.)

1. This appeal suit is filed against aggrieved by the final decree passed in O.S.No.108 of 2008 upon considering the final decree application in I.A.No.395 of 2011 dated 18.12.2014.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant are sisters. The suit was filed, claiming 1/2 share in the various items of suit scheduled properties. Even though the parties proceeded with the trial, subsequently, towards the end of the trial, they amicably resolved the disputes and a preliminary decree by way of consent for partition the suit schedule properties item Nos.1 to 127 was passed on 07.07.2011, by agreeing to ½ share each in the suit properties. Thereafter, there seems to be no consensus in respect of dividing the items as per preliminary decree and once again, a final decree application in I.A.No.395 of 2011 was filed by the defendant in the suit.

3. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who after a detailed enquiry by his report allotted the 25 items of properties in the suit schedule between the parties by duly allotting one dwelling house each, one irrigable well and pump-set each. Some of the schedule items were allotted in total to either of the parties and some of the items by dividing between both of them, thereby ensuring both sides enjoyed properties of equal value. While so allotting, preference was given to allot the properties whichever were in the enjoyment of the respective parties also.

4. Objections were filed to the Commissioner’s report and finally after considering the objections a final decree was passed whereby making a few modifications in the Commissioner’s Report on 18.12.2014. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiff is on appeal before this Court.

5. Heard, Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and M/s. Kavitha Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent defendant.

6. Even though very many grounds were raised, during the course of the arguments, considering the relationship between the parties, this Court also directed both the parties to be present before the Court. The Court also interacted with the parties and the learned counsel tried their level best to bring in about amicable resolution of the disputes. However, still there remained minor differences between the parties and therefore, no judgment on consent could be recorded in by this Court. But, however most of the issues were resolved leading to the arguments being restricted only in respect of a few claims which are made by both the parties.

7. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are totally four claims which are made by the plaintiff. Even though one well each was allotted, unless the plaintiff is permitted to draw water even from the well allotted to the defendant, it would be difficult for the plaintiff to irrigate the lands which are nearer to the well allotted to the defendant. To that extent, he would submit that the judgment and decree needed interference. Similarly, he would submit that there is inequality in respect of the house property allotted between the parties. Thirdly, he would submit that while the Court has divided the extents, in respect of many of the extents allotted to the plaintiff, there is no pathway and the defendant has to give pathway for the access to those agricultural lands. Finally and more importantly, learned Senior Counsel would submit that an extent of 1 Acre and 76 Cents being item No.24 in Survey No.33/7 was allotted by the Advocate Commissioner to the plaintiff. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the value in respect of the said land is on the lower side and therefore, the prayer of the plaintiff was to allot another extent which would fetch more value. While the trial Court accepted the c