The Court's decision was based on the correct appreciation of fact and law, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

1. The appellant-defendant No.15 is aggrieved of the impugned judgment and decree whereby the final decree in pursuance to the application for passing of the final decree for possession by partition, has been allowed and the objections have been dismissed.

2. Mr. Shailendra Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sahil Nayyar, Advocate submits that on 25.04.1950, the civil suit bearing No.436/368 was instituted seeking partition of the movable and immovable shops and business, much less, for rendition of accounts for certain business on the ground that the property is joint family property and they have been carrying on business under the various names and styles as per the list of businesses attached to the plaint, though according to him the businesses were defunct. The claim of the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed to the extent of the property mentioned at Sr. Nos.2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27 in the list 'B/1' filed by defendant Nos.1 to 16 and rest of the claim was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.1954. The Regular First Appeal was preferred in the year 1961 against the said judgment and decree and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench on 19.04.1961, except ordering that the item of property which the defendants have proved to be the exclusive property of the plaintiffs i.e. Item No.26 in List B attached to the plain, be not partitioned and given exclusively to the plaintiffs.

3. During the interregnum period, many of the legal heirs have died. After a period of long 38 years, an application was moved by one Gansham Dass-defendant No.2 along with Parkash Gupta and Purshotam Dass Gupta-defendant Nos.6 and 7 respectively for drawing a final decree for possession by actual partition. Objections were filed against the same, which were dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2000. On 03.10.2000, the trial Court appointed a local commissioner for the purpose of demarcation of the property. He was directed to partition the properties in dispute as per the shares determined in the preliminary decree and to submit the proposed partition. However, on 13.02.2004, another order was passed whereby the same local commissioner, who was present in court, was directed to furnish the report in compliance of the previous order suggesting the mode of partition of the properties.

4. He also draws attention of the Court to the subsequent order dated 16.04.2004 regarding the awaiting of the report of the local commissioner, thus, in substance, local commissioner submitted his two reports i.e. one dated 20.09.2001 Ex.P8 and another one dated 06.05.2004, Ex.P3. Against the report of the local commissioner, objections were filed by one Rajneesh Gupta, one of the legal heirs of Harish Chander-defendant No.4, taking as many as 8 objections. In sum, they are reproduced as under:-

(i) that the local commissioner had allotted the property mentioned at Sr. No.22 of List B-1 to the judgment debtor including the objector.

(ii) that the local commissioner had acted in collusion with the representative of decree holder without assigning reasons. He could not have allotted the property to the decree holder, in essence, cannot withdraw from the share of judgment debtor because of the fact that after allotment of aforementioned properties to the judgment debtor vide LC report dated 20.09.2001, objection qua this property was made and it was prayed to be given to the decree holder.

(iii) that the objector had also submitted objections with regard to the measurements of the property which was not commensurating with the sale deeds. The demarcation was also not proper.

(iv) that the local commissioner arbitrarily mentioned the rate of the property in Annexure J as Rs.10,000/- per square yard instead of Rs.2100/- sq. yards, in essence, the local commissioner failed to assess the value of the construction of the property in question as per the collector rate.

5. He submits that the report of local commissioner wa