JUDGMENT - ZOTING D.S., J.:---This appeal is filed by the original defendant No. 1 against passing of the final decree for partition, in Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 1980, filed by the original plaintiffs, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. By the said preliminary decree, share of the plaintiffs was determined to be half; whereas that of the defendant No. 1 to be remaining half. This preliminary decree is not challenged. 2. After the preliminary decree, final decree proceeding were started before the trial Court and for the purpose of effecting the partition as per the shares determined under the preliminary decree, Shri Pradhan, came to be appointed as Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of Order 26, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code and he submitted the report to the Court. The Civil Court, accepted the Commissioners report in toto and on the basis of the said report passed final decree. The final decree is challenged in this first appeal. 3. After passing of the final decree, there was one round of litigation between the parties in this Court which resulted the matter reaching the Apex Court. The Apex Court by order dated 25-2-2002, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1655 of 2002 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 191714 of 2001, remanded the matter to this Court with direction to dispose of the appeal preferably within six months from the date of order. Pursuant to the said order, the first appeal was placed for admission. Accordingly, appeal was admitted and was fixed for hearing on 23-4-2002. However, by that time, as the paper book was not ready, parties requested for some time for preparation of the paper book. It was noticed that though the suit for partition was filed in the year 1980, several objections came to be filed by the original defendants during pendency of the suit as well as during the final decree proceedings and, therefore, the disposal was delayed, and as such this Court, with a view to test the bona fide of the appellant, directed the appellant/original defendant No. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 23 lacs in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, within one month from the order dated 26-4-2002. 23 lacs in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, within one month from the order dated 26-4-2002. The said order was also challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7148 of 2002 and in view of the order dated 10-5-2002 passed by Supreme Court the order under challenge remained stayed with the modification that the petitioner/appellant shall furnish bank guarantee for sum of Rs. 23 Lacs. The appeal was disposed of on 1-11-2002 with the direction that subject to the above modification, the appellant shall continue to renew the bank guarantee till appeal is decided by this Court. Thereafter the appeal came up for hearing. 4. The facts which are not in dispute, may be briefly stated as under: The appellant is the real brother of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant was given in adoption to Manakchand. There was one firm namely, "M/s. Rajmal Nandlal and Company at Bhusawal". It was a registered partnership firm carrying on business of Cotton Ginning and Pressing in cotton. Its head office was at Bhusawal and branches were at different places. Partners of said firm were; Neelamchand Harakchand (respondent No. 1), Nirmalchand Harakchand (respondent No. 2), Lalchand Manakchand (appellant), Subhaschand Rajmal, Fakirchand Nandlal and Naginchand Nandlal. On 2-3-1977 the firm was dissolved and partnership was carried forward by Fakirchand and Naginchand. After dissolution of partnership firm, the suit properties were given to the share of the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one Subhash Rajmal Mehta jointly each having ¼th share in the said property. The appellant purchased ¼th share of Subhash Rajmal Mehta and as such he has ½ share in the suit property and the remaining ½ share goes to the share of both the respondents. The respondent No. 3 Lalchand Manakchand and Sons is the another firm of which the appellant and his two sons namely, Vinodkumar and Vijaykumar are the partners. As it was allowed that some of the items of the suit property were claimed by the said firm, the first was also joined as defendant No. 2 showing its partners as original defendant Nos. 2(A) to 2(C). 5. On 11-8-1980, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 1980 for partition and separate possession claiming their share to the extent of ½ in the suit property. The defendant (present appellant) filed written statement Exh. 2(A) to 2(C). 5. On 11-8-1980, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 1980 for partition and separate possession claiming their share to the extent of ½ in the suit property. The defendant (present appellant) filed written statement Exh. 47 and resisted the claim of the original plaintiff. His main contention was that both the plaintiffs (present respondent Nos. 1 and 2) agreed to sell their share for Rs. 4,50,000/- in the year 1979. It was an oral agreement and, therefore, taking disadvantage of this situation, they refused to abide by the same. According to him, he is in possession of the property legally and the property was not liable for partition. In the said suit, the present appellant examined three witnesses, whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 examined one witness. On 31-10-1984, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon was pleased to decree the suit. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 together were given ½ share and the remaining ½ share has been allotted to the present appellant. The preliminary decree was drawn. During the final decree proceedings, on 5-3-1985, Shri A.K. Pradhan was appointed as Commissioner to effect the partition. As already stated, on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner at Exh. 207 which was accepted by the learned Judge in toto, final decree came to be passed on 24-12-1999. 6. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the original defendant No. 1 preferred this appeal challenging the correctness of the said decree on several grounds, contending that the learned Judge ought not to have accepted the report in toto, because according to the appellant, the report of the Commissioner suffers from several procedural lapses, irregularities and illegalities. He contended that out of the items described as suit property, godown and two garages belong to the present respondent No. 3(C) as his self-acquired property and, therefore, they ought to have been excluded while effecting the partition. He further contended that the Commissioner made valuation of the land by fixing the land at Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. without any basis for the same. The suit property comprises of the immovable property as well as the old machinery. As regards valuation of the machinery, it is vehemently argued that the valuation made by the Commissioner is imaginary. It is contended that the machinery has been valued to the extent of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. without any basis for the same. The suit property comprises of the immovable property as well as the old machinery. As regards valuation of the machinery, it is vehemently argued that the valuation made by the Commissioner is imaginary. It is contended that the machinery has been valued to the extent of Rs. 23 Lacs though it was pretty old, non- functioning, rusted and damaged, and no depreciation cost was taken into account and deducted while working out the valuation of the said machinery. Thus, there is no rationale behind arriving at value of Rs. 23 Lacs for machinery. It is further submitted that the Commissioners report is based on the valuation report submitted by Shri H.T. Ranade who was the valuer of the suit property. It is further submitted that the said valuer was Civil Engineer and not competent for valuation of the machinery and as such the said report regarding valuation of the machinery is not at all reliable. It is further contended that he filed objections vide Exh. 214 to the report of the Commissioner, but his objections were not considered by the learned Judge. It is also further contended that the Commissioner alleged to have visited and inspected the site of the suit property on 28-2-1985 and 4-3-1986, however the report was prepared on 26-3-1999 i.e. after lapse of 13 years on the basis of the report prepared by the valuer in the year 1991. 7. As against the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has fully supported the final decree. As regards claim of the appellant to exclude godown and two garages belonging to respondent No. 3(C) as his self-acquired property, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the same ground was raised in the suit for partition and the claim of the applicant was negatived by the Court while passing the preliminary decree and as the preliminary decree was not challenged by the appellant or the respondent No. 3, it has become final and conclusive and it is not open for the appellant to reopen the same issue. In support of his contention, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002(4) S.C.C. 743 in the case of (M.L. Subbaraya Setty v. M.L. Nagappa Setty)1. In support of his contention, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002(4) S.C.C. 743 in the case of (M.L. Subbaraya Setty v. M.L. Nagappa Setty)1. He further contended that the Court Commissioner availed of services and help of the Chartered Engineer Shri H.T. Ranade, B.E. (Civil), F.I.V., who is a  registered and approved valuer under Wealth Tax and Estate Duty and also on the panel of L.I.C. Moreover, he is also consulting Engineer of both the parties to the suit, and as such he has personal knowledge regarding the entire suit property. He being expert in the field and moreover the consulting Engineer of both the parties, his integrity and carefulness cannot be questioned and it is further submitted that he is careful and laborious in execution of his task which was proved by his report based on long and careful local investigation and as such the same should be accepted. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the machinery was in possession of the appellant and he disposed of the machinery and its parts during pendency of the matter without seeking any permission of the Court and misappropriated the amount to a large extent and as the machinery was not in existence, the valuer was well justified in calculating the value of the machinery at the rate prevailing for similar type of new machinery during the period of preparation of the report. 8. In view of the arguments advanced by the respective Counsel, following points arise for consideration. (i) Whether the Civil Court was justified in accepting the Commissioners report as regards the immovable property? (ii) Whether the said Court was justified in accepting the report of the Commissioner as regards valuation of the machinery to the tune of Rs. 23 lacs? (iii) If not, what is the valuation of the machinery and its income which is liable to be adjusted towards the share of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2? (iv) Whether the machinery was in exclusive possession of the appellant? (v) Whether the decree passed by the trial Court needs modification? 9. It is to be noted that the preliminary decree has not been challenged by the original defendant No. 1 (present appellant). 1 and 2? (iv) Whether the machinery was in exclusive possession of the appellant? (v) Whether the decree passed by the trial Court needs modification? 9. It is to be noted that the preliminary decree has not been challenged by the original defendant No. 1 (present appellant). While passing the preliminary decree for partition, the claim of the present appellant that the godown and two garages are the self acquired properties of respondent No. 3(C), was negatived by the Civil Court. Same contention has been raised by appellant in this appeal. The present appeal arises out of the final decree proceedings. The parties in these proceedings are governed and bound by the terms of the preliminary decree and the matter decided upto that stage cannot be reopened and readjudicated as held by the Supreme Court in the above cited case of M.L. Subbaraya. This authority is direct answer to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and in view of the said decision, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 10. At the out set, it is to be noted that the final decree came to be passed by accepting the Commissioners report Exh. 207 in toto in respect of both immovable and movable properties, Shri Pradhan was appointed as Commissioner and as already stated, he, being Court Commissioner, with permission of the Court availed services of Chartered Engineer Shri H.T. Ranade, who is a registered and approved valuer. He is also consulting Engineer of both the parties to the suit. The Commissioner was appointed as per the provisions of Order 26, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code. The preliminary decree declares the shares of the parties and the properties which are joint are required to be divided between co-sharers. Regarding valuation, reference may be made to Order 20, Rule 18 of Civil Procedure Code and Order 26, Rules 13 and 14 of Civil Procedure, which read as under : "Order 20, Rule 18 18. The preliminary decree declares the shares of the parties and the properties which are joint are required to be divided between co-sharers. Regarding valuation, reference may be made to Order 20, Rule 18 of Civil Procedure Code and Order 26, Rules 13 and 14 of Civil Procedure, which read as under : "Order 20, Rule 18 18. Decree in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein.—Where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share therein, then,— (1) if and insofar as the decree relates to an estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, the decree shall declare the rights of the several parties interested in the property, but shall direct such partition or separation to be made by the Collector, or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with such declaration and with the provisions of section 54; (2) if and in sofar as such decree relates to any other immovable property or to movable property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property and giving such further directions as may be required. (emphasis supplied) Order 26, Rule 13 13. Commission to make partition of immovable property.—Where a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, the Court may, in any case not provided for by section 54, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit to make the partition or separation according to the rights as declared in such decree. Order 26, Rule 14 14. Procedure of Commissioner.—(1) The Commissioner shall, after such inquiry as may be necessary, divide the property into as many shares as may be directed by the order under which the commission was issued, and shall allot such shares to the parties, and may, if authorized thereto by the said order, Award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalizing the value of the shares. (2) The Commissioner shall then prepare and sign a report or the Commissioners (where the commission was issued to more than one person and they cannot agree) shall prepare and sign separate reports appointing the share of each party and distinguishing each share (if so directed by the said order) by metes and bounds. Such report or reports shall be annexed to the commission and transmitted to the Court; and the Court, after hearing any objections which the parties may make to the report or reports, shall confirm, vary or set aside the same. (3) Where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the Court sets aside the report or reports it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit." 11. As the final decree came to be passed by accepting the Commissioners report in toto which is now being challenged in this appeal, it would be just and proper to reiterate the well settled principle laid down by the Privy Council in the case of (Chandan Mull Indra Kumar v. Chiman Lal Girdhar Das Parekh)2, reported in A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 3. "It has been laid down that interference with the result of a long and careful local investigation except upon clearly defined and sufficient grounds is to be deprecated. It is not safe for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate report of a Commissioner whose integrity and carefulness are unquestioned, whose careful and laborious execution of his task was proved by his report, and who had not blindly adopted the assertions of either party." 12. In order to appreciate the relevant contentions of both the parties, it would be just and proper to refer to the subject-matter of the partition and the valuation made by the valuer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Description Value (Rs.) No. of the Property. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Residential bungalow 8,29,000 named and styled as "Panna Bhavan" in- cluding the land appertaining thereto. 2. Land 33,60,000 3. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Description Value (Rs.) No. of the Property. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Residential bungalow 8,29,000 named and styled as "Panna Bhavan" in- cluding the land appertaining thereto. 2. Land 33,60,000 3. Civil Engineering works, sheds, other buildings-- (a) Press House 1,40,000 (b) Gin House 76, 560 (c) Godown with two 52,500 garages (d) Servants quarter 34,240 (e) Watchmans room and 53,640 garages (f) Well 10,000 (g) Compound wall and 20,000 flooring (h) Mcdam roads and 20,000 Beulder and Murum filling in the compound, etc. Total :-- 4,06,940 Rounded off 4,07,000 4,07,000 4. Plant, Machinery, Stores 23,00,000 Scrap, etc. ------------- Total : 68,96,000 ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commissioners report is at Ex. 207. His report is based on the valuers report dated 4-1-1991 prepared by Shri Ranade, the Consulting and Chartered Engineer and Registered Approved Valuer under Wealth Tax and Estate Duty. He made valuation of building and structures and the land separately. If the building is multi storied, for example, "Panna Bhavan", which is a three storied building, he made valuation of each floor separately. Valuation of Press House, Gin House, Godown with Two Garages, Servants Quarter, Watchmnas Room and garages is also worked out separately. Deducting the depreciation considering the resale value, he worked out the value of each building and the structures. The total land is to the extent of 2.07 acres i.e. 91,155 sq.ft. The land has been valued at Rs. 40/- per sq.ft. The reasons for arriving at that rate are given by the valuer. Taking into consideration the large size of the land situated in the city, its potentiality for the purpose of residential colony, that can be developed with free roads required to be constructed therein, the method adopted appears to be just and proper. The said valuation is objected by the appellant on the ground that the said report is of the year 1991, whereas the final decree is passed in the year 1999 and, therefore, according to him, the said valuation report should not be accepted. In this regard, it is to be noted that both the parties i.e. original plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 have equal share i.e. half share in the suit property and, therefore, if the valuation is made at Rs. 40/- per sq.ft. or more, for e.g. Rs. fifty or sixty per sq. In this regard, it is to be noted that both the parties i.e. original plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 have equal share i.e. half share in the suit property and, therefore, if the valuation is made at Rs. 40/- per sq.ft. or more, for e.g. Rs. fifty or sixty per sq. ft., proportion of value of both sharers does not change, therefore, there appears no substance in the said objection raised on behalf of the appellant. The same principle is also applicable to the valuation of the building and the other structures. It is to be noted that the valuer made the valuation of each structure. He was not knowing as to which structure will be allotted on whose share. Therefore, his integrity cannot be doubted, his carefulness cannot be questioned. Applying the principle in the case of Chandan Muli v. Chiman Lal, A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 3, referred to above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the result of long and careful execution of the task by the valuer. The valuation of the immovable property made by the valuer as per the valuation report submitted before the Civil Court is to the tune of Rs. 45,96,000/- (i.e. land valuation Rs. 33,60,000/-, Panna Building with appertaining land Rs. 8,29,000/- and value of Civil Engineering Work and other building as described above Rs. 4,07,000/-). Thus, valuation of half share of the appellant comes to the extent of Rs. 22,98,000/- and that of the share of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the same extent. 14. Coming to the question of valuation of the machinery, there is a strong objection to it by the appellant. The valuer had valued the machinery to the tune of Rs. 23 lacs. The machinery was being used for carrying on the business of Cotton Ginning and Pressing. It is to be noted that inventory was made by the Commissioner on 7-12-1980 as per the order passed on Exh. 37. The Commissioners report as regards inventory is at Exh. 43. The report shows that he carried out the work of the commission regarding preparation of the inventory of the machinery with the help of the Engineer in presence of the parties to the suit on 7-12-1980 from 11.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. The report was signed by both the parties as well as the Court Commissioner. 43. The report shows that he carried out the work of the commission regarding preparation of the inventory of the machinery with the help of the Engineer in presence of the parties to the suit on 7-12-1980 from 11.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. The report was signed by both the parties as well as the Court Commissioner. In the said inventory, he submitted the list of in all 117 items which indicates that the machinery was in existence on 7-12-1980. Complaints were received by the Court that the present appellant started disposing of the machinery and its parts, and, therefore, the Commissioner was directed to visit the factory in order to show whether the factory was in a running condition. He visited the factory on 4-3-1986 and submitted the report stating therein that the factory was not in running condition and working condition. He further reported that it is very difficult to bring it in working condition in near future. The said report is at Exh. 150. It is to be noted that the Commissioner lodged report to the police on 21-1-1986 which is placed on record at Exh. "F" to the effect that the present appellant has illegally and unauthorisedly removed one boiler of "Maraha Company" from the said factory and gave its possession to Calcutta Iron Scrap Traders, and requested the police to take action against the present appellant as well as the purchaser. Along with the said complaint, he has filed the receipt executed by Lalchand Manakchand Mehta (appellant) in favour of M/s. Calcutta Iron and Scrap Traders for having received Rs. 15,000/- towards part payment of the goods (boiler) sold by the appellant. This fact was brought to the notice of the trial Court and the Civil Court with a view to safeguard the interest of decree holder ordered auction of the machinery but that was objected by the present appellant. When the objection was rejected, he preferred Writ Petition No. 545 of 1986, which also came to be rejected. Practically the same challenge was putforth in Revision Application No. 1059 of 1990. It came to be rejected on 19-12-1990. However, it appears that by that time most of the machinery and its parts were disposed of and, therefore, the Commissioner, in his report Exh. 207 stated that there was no machinery available for making valuation of the same. Practically the same challenge was putforth in Revision Application No. 1059 of 1990. It came to be rejected on 19-12-1990. However, it appears that by that time most of the machinery and its parts were disposed of and, therefore, the Commissioner, in his report Exh. 207 stated that there was no machinery available for making valuation of the same. It appears, therefore, that the valuer made valuation of the machinery on the basis of the current market rate to the extent of Rs. 23 lacs. The matter regarding unauthorised removal of machinery or its parts can be dealt with separately and it appears that the proceedings for breach of injunction against the present appellant are pending before the trial Court. However, despite of these circumstances, the fact remains, whether the valuation made by the valuer to the extent of Rs. 23 lacs in respect of the old machinery should be accepted by the Court. As already stated, the machinery was not available for the purpose of valuation. The machinery appears to be pretty old. When the inventory was prepared by the Commissioner in the year 1980 vide Exh. 43, there is a reference of Press Machine of Horjed Make of the year 1882, and that of the Boiler of Marshal Sons and Co. Ltd. England No. 82975 of the year 1927. In short, there cannot be any doubt that the machinery was pretty old and it was very difficult to work out the valuation of the said machinery even on the basis of the inventory prepared when the machinery was in existence. In this regard, it would be just and proper to note down the valuation of the machinery disclosed by the plaintiffs at the time of filing the suit. Suit was filed on 11-8-1980. Along with the suit, original plaintiffs had submitted Schedule "A" in which the value of the Press Machine and the Gin Machine is shown to the extent of Rs. 6.25 lacs. In the plaint, plaintiff has mentioned at para 8 that the said valuation is made on the basis of the market value. The said valuation has not come to be disputed by the defendant No. 1 who is the present appellant in his written statement and as such what is not disputed shall be deemed to have been admitted and therefore, there appears a good ground to value the machinery at Rs. The said valuation has not come to be disputed by the defendant No. 1 who is the present appellant in his written statement and as such what is not disputed shall be deemed to have been admitted and therefore, there appears a good ground to value the machinery at Rs. 6.25 lacs and as such the ½ share of the plaintiffs comes to the extent of Rs. 3,12,500/-. It is clear from the Commissioners report Exh. 150 as well as from the reply Exh. 159 submitted by defendants to the said report that the appellant was running Ginning and Pressing Machine till 1985 i.e. for five years from the date of institution of the suit. It has come in evidence that prior to institution of the suit, the original plaintiff had leased out their share in the said Ginning and Pressing Factory to the defendant No. 1 for running the same on the yearly lease of Rs. 55,000/- since the year 1977-78. The appellant in his deposition has admitted that he is in possession of entire property since 1979. His evidence is recorded on 20-10-1984. He categorically stated in the cross-examination that he is in possession of the property not as a co-sharer which indicates that he was using the same as if the entire property belongs to him. The same tenor is disclosed by him in the sale-deed Exh. D placed on record of the appeal, executed by the appellant in favour one Shashikant Jethalal Mehta stating therein that though as per the decision of the Court, a Commissioner has been appointed for effecting the partition, he is in possession of the entire property. The sale-deed is dated 13-11-1990. Being a co-sharer, the appellant is liable to account for the income of the property, but he has not disclosed the income. However, from the admitted facts it can be gathered that half share of the respondents could fetch income to the extent of Rs. 55,000/- per year. As discussed above, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to get the income of Ginning and Pressing Machine till the time it was in working condition i.e. from the year 1980 till 1985 i.e. for five years which comes to Rs. 2,75,000/-. Due to the disposal of the machinery, thus the original plaintiffs are put to loss to the extent of Rs. 1 and 2 are entitled to get the income of Ginning and Pressing Machine till the time it was in working condition i.e. from the year 1980 till 1985 i.e. for five years which comes to Rs. 2,75,000/-. Due to the disposal of the machinery, thus the original plaintiffs are put to loss to the extent of Rs. 3,12,500/- i.e. the value of half share in machinery. Thus the valuation of half share of the machinery and loss of income of five years caused to plaintiff comes to Rs. 5,87,500/-. Thus, the share of the original plaintiffs in the machinery and its income comes to the extent of Rs. 5,87,500/-. This amount deserves to be adjusted from the half share of the appellant at the time of final decree. Ordinarily, interest would have been calculated on this amount so as to fix the value of the claim in this regard at the time of passing of final decree which came to be passed in the year 1999, however, as the said claim deserves to be adjusted towards the land value from the share of the appellant and since the valuation of the land is based on the report of valuation prepared in the year 1991, there appears no need to give any more weightage like interest in respect of such claim. 15. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has contended that the Commissioner in his report Exh. 207 has specifically mentioned, that when he had visited the suit property on 28-2-1985, three storied Panna bungalow, Watchmans room, Godown and two Garages were in existence. He has also mentioned that other structures i.e. Gin House, Press House and the Servants quarter are not in existence. The valuation of these three structures as per the valuation report comes to Rs. 2,50,000/-. As already stated, the appellant was in exclusive possession of the suit property and as such he is accountable for non-existence of the structures. Due to removal of these structures, the loss caused to the half share of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 comes to Rs. 1,25,400/-. As already stated, the Commissioners report as regards immovable property is acceptable and as per the said report, the value of immovable property comes to Rs. 45,96,000/-, half share of which comes to Rs. 22,98,000/-. However, as the appellant is accountable for loss of Rs. 1 and 2 comes to Rs. 1,25,400/-. As already stated, the Commissioners report as regards immovable property is acceptable and as per the said report, the value of immovable property comes to Rs. 45,96,000/-, half share of which comes to Rs. 22,98,000/-. However, as the appellant is accountable for loss of Rs. 5,87,500/- towards the machinery and loss of its income, so far as half share of the plaintiffs is concerned. He is also similarly responsible for causing loss by removing structures of tin sheets to the extent of Rs. 1,25,400/-, so far as half share of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned. Thus the total loss caused to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 comes to the extent of Rs. 7,12,900/-. It is fairly established that these are the events happened subsequent to passing of preliminary decree. The learned Counsel for the respondents relying on a decision of Orissa High Court, reported in A.I.R. 1988 Orissa 11, in the case of (Debendra Jena v. Umakanta Jena)3, contended that events happened subsequent to passing of preliminary decree should be taken into consideration and should be decided as the stage of final decree proceedings and all disputes have to be settled once for all in final decree proceedings, so that the parties thereto shall not again institute fresh suits in respect of subject-matter of partition. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the loss caused to the original plaintiffs should be adjusted from the share of the appellant while drawing the final decree proceedings. In the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the learned Judge relying on decisions of various High Courts and that of the Supreme Court observed as under: "It, therefore, appears to be the settled position of law that the final decree proceeding is a stage in continuation of the suit for partition. The partition suit should be deemed to be pending until a final decree is passed. The preliminary decree declares and determines the shares of parties, but all other equities which requires determination and adjustment amongst them are to be decided in the final decree proceeding with the objective of not driving the parties to institute separate suits. Events which have happened subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree can also be taken into consideration and decided at the stage of the final decree proceeding. Events which have happened subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree can also be taken into consideration and decided at the stage of the final decree proceeding. If rights of parties are decided during the final decree proceeding, such decision will amount to another preliminary decree in the suit for partition. Thus, all disputes of the parties are intended to be settled once for all in the final decree proceeding, so that the parties thereto shall not again approach the Court by instituting fresh suits in respect of the subject-matter of partition." A well settled principle is laid down in the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and I respectfully agree with the same and as such this principle is applicable to the present case before me. 16. Reverting now to the case in hand, as already pointed out, half share of the appellant so also of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, out of the total value of the immovable property of Rs. 45,96,000/- comes to Rs. 22,98,000/-. The loss of Rs. 7,12,900/-, as discussed above, is liable to be deducted from his (appellants) share. Deducting the said amount from his share the value of the property to which he is entitled to get, comes to Rs. 15,85,100/-. As against this, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to have a share valued at Rs. 30,10,900/- (i.e. 22,98,000/- + 7,12,900/= 30,10,900/-). As the appellant is in possession of Panna Bhavan a three storied building with appertaining land, the Commissioner has rightly allotted the said building along with the land 10,324 sq. ft. in area to him. The valuer valued the bungalow along with appertaining land of the building i.e. 7,175 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. total value at Rs. 8,29,300/-. In addition to this, the Commissioner has allotted the land 1,822 sq. ft. valued at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft., which comes to Rs. 72,880/-. Thus, the valuation of the share already allotted to the appellant comes to Rs. 9,02,180/-. As pointed out above, he is entitled to have the property valued at Rs. 15,85,100/-. Deducting the value to the extent of Rs. 9,02,180/- of the bungalow and the land already allotted to his share, he is entitled to have additional property worth Rs. 6,82,920/-. Thus, at the rate of Rs. 9,02,180/-. As pointed out above, he is entitled to have the property valued at Rs. 15,85,100/-. Deducting the value to the extent of Rs. 9,02,180/- of the bungalow and the land already allotted to his share, he is entitled to have additional property worth Rs. 6,82,920/-. Thus, at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. land value as worked out by the Commissioner with the help of valuer, the appellant is entitled to get 17,073 sq. ft. land in addition to the property allotted to him. It would be just and proper to allot the land adjoining to the entire eastern boundary of the property already allotted to his share and the remaining land should be put in possession of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, answers to the five points for consideration stated in earlier paragraphs of judgment are as under : 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Rs. 5,87,500/- 4) Yes. 5) Yes, as per final order. 18. Accordingly, appeal deserves to be partly allowed by modifying the final decree of the trial Court. 19. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. The land admeasuring 17,073 sq.ft adjoining the entire eastern boundary of the property already allotted to the share of the appellant out of the immovable suit property be put in his possession. The remaining suit property which comes to the extent of 63,763 sq.ft. be allotted to the share of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. Final decree be drawn accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal, bank guarantee furnished by the appellant during pendency of this appeal shall come to an end from the date of decree of this appeal in view of the order of Supreme Court dated 1-11-2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7148 of 2002 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10056 of 2002. Appeal partly allowed. -----