Court emphasized on effective partition, stating that vertical or horizontal division of property may be impractical, allowing for sale and distribution of proceeds instead.

JUDGMENT:

The challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the appellant/2^nd defendant, is the final decree proceedings dated 10.12.2015 in I.A.No.970 of 2002 in O.S.No.1341 of 1997 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2) The parties in the appeal are referred as they were arrayed in the trail Court.

3a) Initially, the 3^rd respondent/plaintiff filed the suit—O.S.No.1341 of 1997 against the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant, appellant/2^nd defendant and 3^rd respondent/3^rd defendant for partition of plaint schedule mentioned double storied building situated in Adarshnagar, Hyderabad and for allotment of 1/4^th share therein. Plaintiff and defendants are children of late P.Dhananjaya Rao who was the owner of plaint schedule property. Pending suit, plaintiff and 3^rd defendant compromised with the defendants 1 and 2 and relinquished their respective 1/4^th shares in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by accepting monetary consideration. Thus, defendants 1 and 2 became exclusive owners of the plaint schedule property. While so, the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant filed I.A.No.970 of 2002 for appointment of advocate commissioner for ascertaining mesne profits and he also filed I.A.No.971 of 2002 for passing final decree by dividing the suit property into two equal halves. The trial Court appointed an advocate commissioner who upon securing a report from a chartered engineer with regard to mode of bifurcation of plaint schedule property, submitted his report on 07.03.2006 while noting the objections and contentions submitted by either party. The commissioner while agreeing with the Chartered Engineer opined that the property could be vertically divided into two portions. In the process, the advocate commissioner did not accede to the request of the appellant/2^nd defendant for horizontal division of property for the reasons mentioned in his report.

b) While so, the trial Court in its order dated 22.11.2006 in I.A.Nos.970 and 971 of 2002 accepted the commissioner’s report in toto for dividing the schedule property into two equal halves by constructing a vertical wall as suggested by commissioner in his plan. The trial Court observed that both the parties were at liberty to construct their stair cases in the portions allotted to them. It further observed that Northern side portion was allotted to the share of appellant/2^nd defendant and Southern side portion to the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant as per Vastu Sastra, along with the land in an extent of 300.2 square yards each.

c) Challenging the above order, the appellant/2^nd defendant filed C.R.P.No.2155 of 2007 impugning the order mainly on the ground that no allotment was made in respect of terrace in 2^nd floor. A learned single Judge of this Court while observing that no final decree was yet passed by the trial Court, disposed of the CRP with a direction that the trial Court shall take into consideration the terrace, effect the partition of terrace and also by taking into consideration all the allied matters.

d) Thereafter, the trial Court passed the impugned final decree dated 10.12.2015 and directed the office to engross the final decree and send the same for registration. Hence the instant appeal.

4) Heard arguments of Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/2^nd defendant and Sri T.Viswanadha Sastry, learned counsel for 1^st respondent/1^st defendant. R2 and R3 are not necessary parties vide cause title.

5) Severely fulminating the final decree, learned counsel for appellant would, firstly argue that the idea of having a longitudinal bifurcation of plaint schedule prop