JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal is directed against the order granting a final decree allotting the suit property to the respondents herein who are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on deposit of a sum of Rs.43,000/-representing the value of the l/4th share of the appellant.
3. The appellant herein is the first defendant in the suit. She is no other than the sister of the deceased plaintiff. The suitproperty i.e., Item No.1 of the plaint schedule consists of a meagre extent of 96 Sq.yards of site with a house therein. The suit was filed by the brother against the sister for declaration of tile and for recovery of possession of the suit properly. The Court, however, held that the plaintiff-brother was entitled to 3/4th share and the sister (first defendant) was entitled to l/4th share in the property and accordingly granted a preliminary decree for partition on 29-9-1984. Questioning the preliminary decree the first defendant filed AS No.2848 of 1984 in this Court which was dismissed on 17-11-1994 confirming the decree of the trial Court. Pursuant to the preliminary decree the plaintiff applied for passing a final decree in IA No.41 of 1985. As the Commissioner, who was appointed to make the division reported that the property is not capable of being divided, the Court passed an order dated 15-7-1995 directing the property to be auctioned between the parties. The first defendant sought for review of the said order. But the application for review was dismissed by the trial Court. Questioning the same, the first defendant preferred CRPNo.911 of 1997 in this Court which was dismissed on 11-4-1997. Meanwhile the property was put to auction on 4-4-1997. The first defendant, however, refused to participate in the auction and the plaintiff was thereupon directed by the Court to file valuation certificate. Accordingly the plaintiff produced a certificate from the Sub-Registrar concerned to the effect that the market value of the property was Rs.l,72,000/-. Accepting the said valuation, the Court passed an order on 21-4-1997 directing the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.43,000/-towards the l/4th share of the first defendant on or before 28-4-1997 and accordingly the plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 43,000/- on 24-4-1997 and also deposited N.J. stamps for preparing the final decree. By the impugned order dated 28-4-1997, the lower Court passed the final decree allotting the suit property to the plaintiff and permitting the first defendant to withdraw the sum of Rs.43,000/- deposited by the plaintiff towards her share. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the first defendant.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Court below erred in accepting the valuation made by the Sub-Registrar which is solely based on the Basic Value Register maintained for the purpose of registration of documents, that it does not reflect the real value of the property, that the property should be put to auction between the parties as per the original direction and that to show her bona fides; the appellant has complied with the condition imposed by this Court for grant of stay by depositing the entire sum of Rs.1,72,000/- in Court. He, therefore, submits that it is a fit case where a direction should be given to auction the property between the parties.
5. I am afraid it would be unjust to put the clock back at this stage having regard to the earlier conduct of the appellant. When the Commissioner reported that the property is incapable of division and the Court directed auction of the property, the appellant questioned the same unsuccessfully by filing a revision in this Court. Ultimately when the property was put to auction, the petitioner refused to participate in the auction. The Court, therefore, had no other alternative but to direct the plaintiff to file a valuation certificate and accordingly the plaintiff produced a certificate of valuation from the Sub-Registrar concerned. The appellant did not produce any other material to show the alleged real value of the property. The lower Court was, therefore, justified in accepting the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff has accordingly deposited the sum of Rs.43,000/- in the lower Court and he also deposited the N.J. stamps for preparing the final decree. As rightly observed by the lower Court, according to the provisions of the Partition Act, the major shareholder is entitled to seek the Court to allot the building on deposit of value of the share of the other sharer in case the property is not divisible. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. The appellant has to blame herself only for the present situation. The suit is of the year 1973. The preliminary decree was passed as long ago as on 29-9-1984. Having regard to these facts, I do not find any justification whatsoever for acceding to the request of the appellant to direct the property to be auctioned between the parties now.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.