In partition proceedings, courts possess the equitable discretion to allot specific items in the possession of long-term third-party alienees to the alienor's share, provided that other co-sharers receive value-based compensation from other properties to maintain the equity and proportionality of their declared shares.

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the order dated 07.09.2007 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2003 in O.S.No.24 of 1986 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that O.S.No.24 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff claiming partition of his joint family ancestral properties listed under Schedule “A” (landed) and Schedule “B” (residential houses). The plaintiff, through his father Annanthaiah, sought a legitimate share in the properties. After contest, the trial court dismissed the suit on 24.04.1991, rejecting the claim, but the plaintiff appealed to this Court in A.S.No.1730 of 1991, which, upon detailed adjudication, reversed the decision of the trial Court and passed a preliminary decree on 05.03.2003. The decree duly recognized that Annanthaiah was entitled to a fifty percent share, while defendant Nos.1 and 2 each had a one-fourth share in the properties, and it directed that the properties be partitioned accordingly.

3. Pursuant to this, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.297 of 2003 under Order XXVI Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC, seeking a final decree through actual division by metes and bounds, with appointment of a Commissioner for this purpose. The trial Court appointed advocate Sri N. Malleshwar as Commissioner, who prepared survey sketches with the help of a surveyor, but this process was beset with objections from various parties. Respondent No.2 argued that the Commissioner failed to incorporate current valuations or physical features, while respondent Nos.3 to 5, representing the legal heirs of defendant No.1, claimed that the Commissioner overlooked existing constructions and alienations. Respondents 6 to 13, third-party purchasers of Item No.6 from defendant No.1, claimed longstanding possession and sought that Survey No.1034 (Item No.6), comprising about 12 acres, be allotted exclusively to the share of defendant No.1, citing prior court clarifications that equities could be considered from the share of the defendant. These purchasers had previously challenged the commission warrant through a Civil Revision Petition before this Court, which was dismissed, but they were permitted to raise objections in the trial Court.

4. The trial Court analyzed these objections and clarified that the role of the Commissioner was to execute the decree through division, not valuation or noting alienations; that valuation matters could be addressed during allotment; and that shortfalls due to government acquisition and the exclusion of a graveyard in Survey No.42 were acknowledged. Concerning Item No.6, valued at Rs.87,48,300/-, the trial Court held it should be wholly allotted to the share of defendant No.1, with the value proportionately compensating the plaintiff and respondent No.2 by assigning land from Survey No.16, valued at Rs.19.36 lakhs per acre. This approach ensured that the third-party purchasers’ possession and prior rights were protected while maintaining fairness. For other properties, the trial Court directed a lot-based division, with parties or their counsel required to appear on 25th September 2007; absent parties would have the division made ex-parte, and the allotments would be final. The trial Court also permitted amendments to sketches if necessary, to address any inconsistencies arising during the allocation process. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal suit is filed.

5. Heard Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behal