J U D G M E N T

Sathish Ninan, J.

The final decree in a suit for partition is under challenge in these appeals by the plaintiffs and the 11^th defendant respectively. The total extent of the properties, as described in the plaint schedules, is approximately 372 cents.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The grievance projected is with regard to the valuation of the properties. The parties are rest contended with the manner of allotment.

4. Admittedly some of the parties have taken delivery of the respective plots allotted to them under the impugned final decree. In view of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the R.F.A. Nos.332 &

494 of 2009 -: 2 :-

mode of allotment, there is no necessity to consider the correctness or otherwise of the mode of allotment.

5. With regard to the valuation of the properties, the trial court noticed that no evidence was adduced by the parties as to why the valuation done by the Commissioner could not be accepted. It is seen that but for filing applications to remit the commissioner’s report, no evidence was adduced to establish that the valuation made is not liable to be accepted.

6. Since there is no need to interf