The court established that equitable access and property values govern partition decrees, ensuring no substantial inequality exists among parties.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is preferred by the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed. The initial judgment was on 25.09.2009. An appeal filed against the judgment in O.S.No.377/2008, has been dismissed. Thereafter the final decree proceedings were initiated and a final decree was passed by order in I.A.No.451/2010 on 26.09.2018. A.S.No.60/2018 was filed against the final decree and the said appeal has been dismissed by judgment dated 25.08.2022. It is against the said judgment that this appeal is filed.

2. The only serious contention raised is that while accepting the Commissioner's report, the Court has also accepted the way that has been set apart through the appellant's property which is of a width of 3 metres. According to the appellant, a way of 3 feet width alone should have been granted, in which case, the appellant would have been entitled to a larger extent and would not have lost property which belongs to him. The said contention was not accepted by the Courts below. The Trial Court found that the property that has been alloted to the appellant is having a frontage to the public road while the property which is alloted to the defendant does not have road frontage. The way that has been provided now is between the property which is allotted to the defendant and the property which the defendant got on the basis of a release deed executed by Devayani, the mother of the appellant and the respondents. So it cannot be said that the 3 metre way was carved out of the property of the appellant. The Appellate Court also found that there is no inequity caused to the appellant since there has been no valuation of the property which has been set apart to the respondents and the appellant in terms of the access to the public road and there has been no direction to give any owelty on the basis of such valuation. It is also found in the order that the extent which has been set apart to the appellant and the respondents is also equal and there can be no inequality on that aspect. It is hence pointed out that the property which is set apart to the appellant is more valuable as it has a direct frontage to the public road and that advantage is not available as far the the respondents is concerned. The fact that 3 metre wide way was provided cannot in any way found to be inequitable as far as the appellant is concerned. Since inequality was pointed out, the counsel for the appellant was asked to get instruction whether the appellant is willing to take the portion which had been alloted to the plaintiff instead of the portion allotted to him. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not willing for that course of action. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings on the above aspects. No substantial question of law is made out. The appeal fails and is dismissed.