The first Appellate Court must address all issues and contentions raised by the parties and record findings supported by reasons on all issues and contentions.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, thereby passing final decree of partition on an application moved by respondent No.1.

2. The facts leading to the present case are that property bearing House No.504, Ward No.16, Civil Lines, Gurugram measuring 855 Sq. yard, became an apple of discord between the legal heirs of deceased Rao Gajraj Singh. Arising out of a suit for separate possession by way of partition, judgment dated 21.05.2010 came to be passed in RSA No.3937 of 2005 titled as Air Vice Marshal Mahinder Singh Rao (Retd.) Vs. Narender Singh Rao and others, granting preliminary decree, whereby the 9 legal heirs of Rao Gajraj Singh were held entitled for 1/9th share each. Further, based on a Will, 1/9th share inherited by Smt. Sumitra Devi i.e. wife of Rao Gajraj Singh was ordered to devolve upon respondent No.1 herein thereby holding him entitled to the extent of 1/9th share out of the suit property. The aforesaid judgment dated 21.05.2010 was later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.03.2013 passed in SLP No.6918 of 2011.

3. Based on the aforesaid preliminary decree dated 21.03.2010, respondent No.1 moved an application before the trial Court for grant of issuance of final decree of partition stating there that he was in possession of eastern side of the suit property and may be allowed his 2/9th share separately towards the eastern side having front on northern side. In furtherance thereof, the trial Court, ordered for appointment of local commissioner so as to suggest mode of operation and demarcate the suit land as per respective shares of parties to the suit. Accordingly, concerned Halqa partwari who was appointed as a local commissioner, submitted his report dated 15.09.2015 recording, inter-alia, that it would be appropriate to give 190 Sq. yards on the north west side of the property in question to respondent No.1 against his 2/9th share and rest of the owners having 7/9th share be given 665 Sq. yards towards north east direction which as per Local Commissioner would even save their ancestral house.

4. Aggrieved against the report submitted by local commissioner, respondent No.1 filed his objections, inter-alia, submitting that the partition was required to be effected by protecting possession; the local commissioner never afforded opportunities to the parties to lead evidence before it; the western side of the property was in possession of appellants and other co-sharers; the report was prepared without carrying out actual and valid measurement of the suit property and finally prayed for setting aside the same besides seeking allotment of 2/9th share separately towards eastern side of the suit property.

5. A detailed reply to the objections was submitted by all other co-sharers including the appellants. In short the basic substance of the reply was that no details were pointed out in the objections to show as to how the report of the local commissioner was illegal or against facts. Besides it, the appellants submitted that the shops in question were rented out by their mother Sumitra Devi and the rent was being collected by respondent No.1 on behalf of entire family. A rejoinder to the aforesaid reply was also submitted at the instance of respondent No.1.

6. Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016 passed final decree, granting respondent No.1 his 2/9th share of the suit property towards eastern side by raising a wall from north east to south east by covering 190 sq. yards area. Learned Trial Court also recorded that the mode of partition as suggested by the local commissioner was not practically feasible as the same required major demolition, resultantly, the objections raised by respondent No.1 to the report were even allowed.