JUDGMENT

The first defendant in O.S.No.81 of 1987, who is the first respondent in I.A.No.1670 of 1990, which is an application for passing the final decree, is the appellant herein. She challenges the final decree passed by the court below.

2. The relevant portion of the preliminary decree dated 27.11.1989 reads as follows:

“1. That the plaint schedule property as shown below except the new building thereon be available for partition, 2. That the said property be divided into 120 equal shares and 49 such shares be allotted to the plaintiffs, 3. That the rest be go to 1st defendant, as assignee of remaining sharers, 4. That the property covered by Ext.B2 assign-

ment in favour of tenth defendant be allo-

tted to 1st defendant to the possible extent.”

A Commissioner was appointed to divide the property by metes and bounds. He submitted report, share list, account and plan. The plaint schedule property was divided into two plots. Plot-A, having an extent of 25 3/10 cents, was allotted to the share of the plaintiff while plot-B, having an extent of 32 2/10 cents, was allotted to the share of the first defendant. It is stated that there is a road on the northern side of the property. The Com