JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, A.C.J. 1. This appeal is by the Plaintiff from the final decree dated 6-9-1965 of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, passed in O.S. No. 55 of 1952 by which allotments were made allotting table No. 5 to the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 are brothers. Plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming one-fifth share in the suit properties which included immovables and also movables including the Jatri business. First of all the movables including the Jatri business were divided amongst the parties and this division has become final. As regards the immovable properties, the trial Court appointed a commissioner to divide the same which included the residential homestead of the parties. The Commissioner divided the immovables into five parts of equal valuation and numbered them as tables 1 to 5. The residential homestead of the parties standing on plots 13 and 14 were divided into three parts and included in Tables 1 to 3. He included two other houses belonging to the family in Tables 4 and 5. The Commissioner left the question of the actual allotments of these tables amongst the co-sharers to the Court. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 10-5-1963 allotted tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, and table No. 5 to the Plaintiff. The final decree has been drawn up on the basis of such allotment. The learned Subordinate Judge gives the following reasons for such allotment: There is no special equity in favour of the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendants are in litigation I think it will be convenient to allot a lot out of Nos. 4 and 5 (Tables 4 and 5) only to the Plaintiff and this will avoid future trouble between the parties. The Plaintiff?s counsel does not exercise the option of selecting the lot no between 4 and 5. Hence the Plaintiff is allotted the lot No. 5 and the Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 are allotted lot Nos. 1, ?2, 3 and 4 respectively. 4. The only point urged on behalf of the Plaintiff Appellant is that lot No. 1 of Table No. 1 comprises of the eastern portion of the family residential house standing on plots 13 and 14 and that lot No. 1 should have been allotted to his table. 1, ?2, 3 and 4 respectively. 4. The only point urged on behalf of the Plaintiff Appellant is that lot No. 1 of Table No. 1 comprises of the eastern portion of the family residential house standing on plots 13 and 14 and that lot No. 1 should have been allotted to his table. His ground is that he is the eldest son and was in occupation of the major portion of the homestead included in lot No. 1 and that as the eldest male member of the family he is entitled to perform the Sradha in the residential house which would be impossible if be was not given a share in it. 5. One of the equitable principles which is invariably followed in effecting partition by metes and bounds is to respect, as far as possible the present possession of the parties and to see that each co-owner or co-sharer is given a share in specie as for as practicable. This principle is generally followed, because as is shown from experience, great importance is attached in this country to the possession of a share in specie by a co-sharer. In a partition between brothers a consideration is also shown to the eldest brother who; in certain cases, claims and gets a Jysthansha where it is permissible by custom. That is so because he is given a pride of place in the family before its disruption. The principle to be kept in mind in effecting division by metes and bounds has been enunciated in the case of Debendra Nath Bhattacharjee and Another Vs. Hari Das Bhattacharjee and Another, as follows: It is an elementary principle that in cases of partition where several persons are co-owners or co-sharers of immoveable property, partition should be effected between them by giving to each his share in specie as far as practicable. The right of each share is to his slice of the property, not merely its money value and it is matter of common experience that great importance is attached in this country to the possession of share in specie by co-sharer of property which has belonged to the family of which he is a member or which has defended from an ancestor. The law gives effect to this sentiment as far as possible. The law gives effect to this sentiment as far as possible. In this appeal, there is no objection either on behalf of the Plaintiff or on behalf of the Defendants to the different tables prepared by the commissioner or to the division of the family residential house into three parts and incorporating those parts in the first three tables by the commissioner. The only dispute in this appeal is with regard to allotment of the portion of the residential house in lot No. 1 in table No. 1. The Plaintiff wants this lot to be allotted to his share. This comprises the major portion of the eastern part of the house and is included in lot No. 1 of table No. 1 which is in physical possession and occupation of the Plaintiff since the time of his father. This has been admitted by Defendant 3 who was examined In the case as d.w. 1 for the Defendants. According to him, the joint family residential house consisted of eleven Bakharas in all out of which seven Bakharas only are habitable and the remaining four Bakharas are not habitable as they are in dilapidated condition. The bed-rooms of the Plaintiff-Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are on the first floor of the family residential house. Thus, the bed-rooms in possession of the Plaintiff have been included in lot No. 1 of table No. 1. If the present possession of the parties is to be respected, as it should have been done by the Subordinate Judge, the lot containing the eastern part of the residential house, major portion of which is in physical possession of the Plaintiff, should be allotted to him. The homestead has been divided, as already stated, into three tables, viz, tables 1, 2 and 3 and have been valued separately by the commissioner. It appears from the allotment list that parts of family residential house appertaining to plots 13 and 14, included in table Nos. 1 to 3, have been valued at Rs. 6227/-, Rs. 5856/- and Rs. 3335/- respectively. It also appears that lot No. 1 table 5 allotted to the Plaintiff comprises of house property and is valued at Re. 3397/-. Since the allotment of homestead portions in those tables is invariably linked I with other items of immovable property making the total valuation of different allotment table. 6227/-, Rs. 5856/- and Rs. 3335/- respectively. It also appears that lot No. 1 table 5 allotted to the Plaintiff comprises of house property and is valued at Re. 3397/-. Since the allotment of homestead portions in those tables is invariably linked I with other items of immovable property making the total valuation of different allotment table. equal, The only way allot No. 1 of table No. 1 to the Plaintiff, without affecting the total valuation of different allotments would be to allot table No. 5 to Defendant No. 1 and table No. 1 to the Plaintiff. It is said that the Defendants filed a petition in the final decree proceedings to allot their shares separately and, accordingly, the commissioner was directed to divide the properties into five shares which be has done When the Defendants have decided to separate inter se the main ground, on which the learned Subordinate Judge refused to allot the table No. 1 to the Plaintiff, namely that since the Defendants are sailing jointly in this litigation and there is amity amongst them, it would be convenient to allot the tables containing the entire residential house to them, loses its validity. The Defendants filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC tendering some photographs by way of additional evidence. That was done to show that the Plaintiff has a building very near to the residential house of the family and to urge that since the Plaintiff has his own building he should not be given a share in the residential house by way of any equitable consideration. In reply, the Plaintiffs counsel urges that the adjoining building belongs to the son of the Plaintiff and that no cases for additional evidence has been made. It appears to us that requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC have not been fulfilled and so the petition for additional evidence is rejected. 6. We would, therefore, modify the final decree to this extent that table No. 1 comprising the eastern portion of the family residential house is to be allotted to the Plaintiff and table No. 5 is to be allotted to Defendant No. 1. Allotments of tables 2 to 4 as made by the learned Subordinate Judge will stand. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, but in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs of this Court. Allotments of tables 2 to 4 as made by the learned Subordinate Judge will stand. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, but in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs of this Court. K.B. Panda, J. 8. I agree.