Jurisdictional authority necessitates that objections to a commissioner's report must be resolved prior to making decisions concerning property valuation in partition suits.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein are the additional plaintiffs in O.S No.205 of 1978 on the files of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara. The suit is one for redemption and partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 02.02.1987 declaring that the plaintiffs have 4/13 shares, the 1^st defendant has 6/13 shares and defendants 2 and 3 jointly have 3/13 shares. The final decree originally passed on 31.07.2004 was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded for passing a fresh final decree. Thereafter, Ext.C1 report and Ext.C1(a) plan were got prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. The petitioners submitted objections against Exts.C1 and C1(a) pointing out that the subject matter of the dispute namely plaint B schedule has not been identified by the Commissioner. Certain other infirmities were also pointed out. The trial court found that there are certain serious infirmities in the commissioner’s report and it needs to be remitted to the Commissioner for further report. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing O.P(C) No.4348 of 2013 contending that while remitting the Commission report, the trial court has entered a finding that plaint B schedule property forms part of plaint A schedule to Ext.A2, which was not proper, as the property had not been located with reference to Exts.A1 and A2 documents.

2. This Court, by Ext.P1 judgment, interfered with the order of the trial court to the extent it entered a finding that the plaint B schedule property forms part of A schedule to Ext.A2. This Court directed the Commissioner to ascertain whether plaint B schedule property forms part of plaint A schedule property covered by Ext.A1 document or whether it is part of plaint A schedule to Ext.A2 having an extent of 11.4 cents after measuring the property with respect to the title deeds. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the Commissioner submitted Ext.C2 report and Ext.C2(a) plan on 25.01.2017. The petitioners filed I.A No.497 of 2017 to set aside the said report and plan stating that the same is prepared not in consonance with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment. The trial court, by Ext.P2 order, found that the Advocate Commissioner has not identified the plaint schedule properties as directed in Ext.P1 judgment and set aside Exts.C2 and C2(a) report and plan. Pursuant to the direction in Ext.P2, the Advocate Commissioner submitted a fresh report on 07.09.2018. The 1^st defendant No.1738 of 2017 seeking to remit back the commission report stating that the Commissioner has not identified the plaint B schedule property in accordance with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment. The said application was allowed by Ext.P3 order and Ext.C2 report and Ext.C2(a) plan were remitted to the Commissioner to comply with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment. Thereafter, the Commissioner filed a revised report and plan on 04.03.2021 and the petitioners filed I.A No.3 of 2021 in FDA No.205 of 1978 for remitting the report and to rectify the defects pointed out by the petitioners. The trial court, by Ext.P4 order, directed the Commissioner to ascertain the value of improvements as directed in the preliminary decree. The petitioners filed I.A.No.5 of 2022 for direction to the Advocate Commissioner to conduct a survey and measurement of the subject properties as per title deeds and to partition the same in terms of the preliminary decree. However, the said application was dismissed by Ext.P5 order. The petitioners have filed this original petition challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders. Ext.P4 is impugned contending that there cannot be a direction to ascertain the value of improvements without acc