JUDGMENT

Heard in extenso Sri. N.M. Madhu, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Smt. Zohra, the learned Counsel for the 3^rd respondent. There is no appearance for the other respondents even though service is complete. Notice on admission was ordered and after extensively hearing the appeal on the question of admission, this Court is prima facie convinced that the judgments of the Courts below are unsustainable and hence this appeal is required to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law;

Whether the Courts below went wrong in disallowing the claim for partition of the property covered by a registered document and despite the same being clearly identified by the Commissioner under Ext. C4(a) plan and also in the absence of any contra evidence let in by defendants 4, 5 and 15 who were opposing the claim for partition?

With consent, the matter is taken on board for final hearing.

2. The short question involved in the present appeal is, whether the judgments of the Courts below can be sustained in spite of multiple irregularities committed by the Advocate Commissioner in the manner in which the plaint schedule property was identified? The plaintiff claimed partition