JUDGEMENT

The respondents/defendants has filed the above Second Appeal challenging the final decree passed in I.A.No.858 of 2014 in O.S.No.744 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial questions of law:

''1. Whether the Courts below are right in accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner without considering the objections that share was not equitably distributed?

2.Whether the Courts below are right in allotting the shares in such a manner that would diminish the value of the property?

3.Whether the Courts below are correct and justified in passing the final decree by ignoring the settled principle and proposition of law that, when the procedure adopted by the Commissioner is flawed and illegal, final decree cannot be passed on the basis of that report?''

3. The brief facts which has culminated in the filing of the second appeal are herein below narrated. The respondents herein as plaintiffs, had filed the suit in O.S.No.550 of 2009 on the file of the District Court at Coimbatore, which was later transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore and re-numbered as O.S.No.744 of 2011, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The appellant herein had filed O.S.No.578 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The suit property in both the suits were the same. The appellant had claimed an exclusive right to the property on the basis the Will dated 15.07.2005 executed by his father Rangae Gowder. By Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2014 a partition was granted by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge in O.S.No.744 of 2011 and the suit O.S.No.578 of 2009 was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents herein initiated the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.858 of 2014 to divide the properties into five equal shares and to allot a share each to the respondents herein.

4. The appellant herein had filed counter inter-alia raising a preliminary objection that since he has challenged the judgment and decree passed in the above suits in A.S.Nos.1 of 2015 and 2 of 2015 before the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, the final decree proceedings were pre-mature. He would also question the jurisdiction of the Court. However, the learned Principal Judge had appointed a Commissioner who had visited the suit schedule property along with a Surveyor and measured the same and divided the property into five equal shares, leaving a Well and path way in common to the sharers. The appellant had filed his objections to the Commissioner's report and ultimately, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge had passed the final decree.

5. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the final decree proceedings, the respondents 1 to 3 had filed a memo stating that they do not wish to proceed further with the final decree proceedings, since they had settled the dispute with the appellant and had entered into a compromise with him. They had filed a memo seeking the Court's approval for appointing a new counsel. Since their earlier counsel was not willing to accept the compromise that was entered into between the appellant and the respondents 1 to 3 herein.

6. The Principal Subordinate Judge by his judgment and decree dated 20.07.2020 passed the final decree in terms of the Commissioner's Report and Plan and both of these formed part of the decree. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed A.S.No.42 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The learned Judge, on hearing the contention of both parties, ultimately dismissed the First Appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court.

7. The main objection raised in the grounds of appeal is that the Commissioner had not independently valued the building and the trees which was a