The court emphasizes equitable distribution considerations in partition cases, balancing property rights and access to irrigation leading to a revised final decree.

JUDGMENT

In a suit for partition filed by the sister, Chitra Devi, against her brother, Sankar Parameswaran, a preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court on 24.01.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed applications under Order XX Rule 12 and Order XXVI Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking division of the suit schedule property in accordance with the preliminary decree and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate and effect partition of the property.

2. The Court below, based on the Commissioner’s report and other materials on record, passed the final decree as follows:

"2.that the petitioner be and the same is hereby allotted the green colour marked B4 porition in Ex.C3 in Item No.1 of the schedule property which includes 0.96 acres with coconut trees in 216/3part and 7.44 acrres in S.F.No.216/3 and 217/3 in total 8.40 acres.

3.that the respondent be and the same is hereby allotted the blue marked portion A4 in Ex.C3 plan which lies in S.F.No.216/3 and in 217/1, 219/1. 220/1. The open well is to be trated as common, the bore-wells are to be enjoyed separately.

4.With respect to the house property since the petitioner be and the same is hereby allotted the front portion in the agricultural lands and as she is ready to take any portion in the house property, the petitioner be and the same is hereby allotted B1 in Ex.C5 and the respondent be and the same is hereby allotted the front portion A1 in Ex.C5.

5.that Ex.C3 and Ex.C5 plans shall form part of the final decree.

6.Since the pathway measures 1.30 acres and the same can be used as common pathway by both parties, taking into consideration of the guideline value and ½ right of the petitioner over the pathway portion, this Court holds that an amount of Rs.4,55,000/- is to be paid as value for the pathway right by the petitioner to the respondent, if both agree to use the portion as common pathway. If the petitioner, does not want to use the pathway as common pathway along with the respondent then she has to work out her remedy."

3. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant alleging that the Advocate Commissioner’s report is unclear regarding the mode of division of the landed properties. It is contended that the land has been divided in such a manner that the portion allotted to the plaintiff is in close proximity to the highway, whereas the portion allotted to the defendant is away from the highway and of inferior quality.

4. It is further contended that the bore-wells and electric motor pump set are located entirely within the portion allotted to the plaintiff, thereby leaving the defendant with land lacking irrigation facilities. Additionally, the Court has granted access to the plaintiff's portion through the defendant’s land, without valid justification for abandoning the existing pathway. This, according to the appellant, is irrational and warrants interference.

5. It is also alleged that in respect of the residential house, while the Advocate Commissioner had reported to be indivisible, the Court has directed a horizontal division, allotting the front portion to the defendant and the rear portion to the plaintiff, which, according to the appellant, would cause inconvenience to both parties. He claims the house, in which he is currently residing, should have been allotted exclusively to him and the half the value of the property ought to have been given to the plaintiff or adjusted with the agricultural land.

6. The appellant also contends that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands, having projected a fabricated Will, and therefore ou