Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decretal order dated 23.2.2005 made in I.A. No. 566/2002 in O.S. No. 4 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thenkasi. 2. The suit in O.S. No.4/1999, was filed by the respondent herein, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thenkasi, seeking partition and separate possession "of 6/20 shares in the schedule mentioned property and for consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 566/2002 before the Trial Court, to fix the value of his 6/20 share in the schedule of property and to direct the respondent herein to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein under Section 4 of the Indian Partition Act and Section 151, C.P.C. 3. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi appointed an Advocate Commissioner to assess the market value of the 6/20 share and the Commissioner after inspecting the property filed a report before the Trial Court. Based on the Commissioner's report, while allowing the Interlocutory Application, the Trial Court directed the respondent herein to receive a sum of Rs.56,934 from the petitioner herein for his 6/20 share and execute the sale deed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court, the revision petitioner preferred the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2004. After hearing both sides and considering the materials available on record, this Court passed the order dated 9.7.2004. The operative portion of the order dated 9.7.2004 reads as follows: (i) The above Civil Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The order of the Court below dated 2.3.2003 made in I.A. No. 566 of 2004 in O.S. No. 4 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court, Tenkasi is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Court of Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi for proper consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the law enunciated by the Supreme Court on the subject, in the Judgment in Raghubans Narain v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1967 SC 465 . 4. Pursuant to the said order passed in the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2004 dated 9.7.2004, the Advocate Commissioner again inspected the property and submitted his report. 4. Pursuant to the said order passed in the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2004 dated 9.7.2004, the Advocate Commissioner again inspected the property and submitted his report. The Advocate Commissioner was also examined as a witness before the Trial Court in the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 566 of 2002, after the same was remitted back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court by the impugned order dated 23.2.2005 has decided the value of the 6/20 share of the property belongs to the respondent/plaintiff at Rs.3,30,000, against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, who was the defendant in the suit. 5. According to the petitioner herein, the Trial Court has erroneously fixed the value of the property by accepting the Commissioner's report which was prepared on the basis of the local enquiry made by him. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the Court below has erroneously decided the Interlocutory Application in the light of the decision rendered in Raghubans Narain v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1967 SC 465 , instead of following the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and others v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and others, AIR 1987 SC 66 , and that the Court below did not give any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses stated by the Commissioner in his report for fixing the market value. 6. The point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 566 of 2002 in O.S. No. 4 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi has to be set aside and the Trial Court be directed to fix the market value of 6/20 share belonged to the respondent herein at Rs.56,934 as stated by the revision petitioner herein. 7. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is not in dispute that the respondent herein is entitled to 6/20 share in the schedule mentioned property as per the decree passed in O.S. No. 4 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi. 7. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is not in dispute that the respondent herein is entitled to 6/20 share in the schedule mentioned property as per the decree passed in O.S. No. 4 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi. As the property is indivisible, the petitioner/defendant filed the Interlocutory Application under Section 4 of the Indian Partition Act before the Trial Court seeking an order to fix the value of the 6/20 share belonged to the respondent/plaintiff and also to direct the respondent herein to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on receipt of the said amount. Therefore, the only question to be gone into in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the impugned order fixing the value of the 6/20 share belonging to the respondent has got to be set aside and whether the C.R.P. has got to be allowed and that the value at Rs.56,934 as per the earlier order has to be accepted as prayed for by the revision petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has contended that, the order dated 9.7.2004 passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2004 was not disputed by way of challenging the order by the Civil Revision Petitioner herein 'and therefore, it is not open to him to challenge the same by way of filing this Civil Revision Petition. The order passed by the Trial Court in the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 566 of 2002 fixing the value at Rs.56,934 for the respondent's 6/20 share was already set aside by the order passed in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2005. Therefore, the prayer of the revision petitioner directing the Trial Court to fix the market value of 6/20 share belongs to the respondent herein at Rs.56,934 as decided earlier by the Trial Court, is not legally maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that pursuant to the order dated 9.7.2004, the advocate Commissioner inspected the property and suggested the market value based on his enquiry before the Trial Court. Accordingly, total value of the property was fixed at Rs.11,00,000 by the Tribunal based on the highest price offered by one Khader Mohideen to the Advocate Commissioner. The value of the 6/20 share belongs to the respondent has been fixed by the Trial Court at Rs.3,30,000. Accordingly, total value of the property was fixed at Rs.11,00,000 by the Tribunal based on the highest price offered by one Khader Mohideen to the Advocate Commissioner. The value of the 6/20 share belongs to the respondent has been fixed by the Trial Court at Rs.3,30,000. On the basis of the highest price offered by the individual Khader Mohideen, to the Advocate Commissioner and therefore according to the learned counsel for the respondent there is no illegality in the impugned order to be set aside. 9. As per order dated 9.7.2004 passed in C.R.P. No.104 of 2004, this Court had directed the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi for proper consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case to fix the market value of 6/20 share, and having regard to the law enunciated by the Supreme Court on the subject in the Judgment in Raghuhans Narain v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1967 SC 465 . According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the third direction with reference to the Apex Court Judgment is only 'per ineurium' on account of the subsequent decisions in Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and others v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and others, AIR 1987 SC 66 , and that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate and act on the valuation report based on "building and land method". 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has cited the decision in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152 , where in it has been held as follows: "Therefore, Section 11 is to be read in combination and harmony with Explanation VIII. The result that would flow is that an order or an issue which had arisen directly and substantially between the parties or their privies and decided finally by a competent Court or Tribunal, though of limited or special jurisdiction, which includes pecuniary jurisdiction, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that such Court of limited or special jurisdiction was not a competent Court to try the subsequent suit. The issue must directly and substantially arise in a later suit, between the same parties or their privies." 11. The issue must directly and substantially arise in a later suit, between the same parties or their privies." 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has also cited a decision in Baratam Satyanarayana v. Baratan Kantharao and others, AIR 1989 AP 320 , wherein it has been held as follows: “In case of sales under Section 3 and Section 4, the sale of the shares of other shareholders in favour of the shareholder applying for purchase, is governed by the self-contained procedure in Section 3 and Section 4 only and by such 'necessary or proper directions' as the Court may grant and not by the procedure in Section 7 i.e. The Original Side Rules ,of the High Court or the procedure in Order 21, C.P.C. or Rule 9 of the Rules made under the Partition Act or Rules 193 to 205 of the Civil Rules of Practice." 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has also cited the decision in Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Gream (P) Ltd., 2004 (4) CTC 479: 2004 (7) SCC 288 , wherein it has been held: "While interpreting a judgment, this Court must pinpoint it attention to the ratio thereof. A Court of law must not lose sight of the doctrine of "stare decisis". A view which has been holding the field for a long time should not be disturbed only because another view is possible." 13. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that as per the decision in Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and others v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and others, AIR 1987 SC 66 , putting the property for auction sale so that the highest bid in auction may determine the market value, is not a proper method and that, building and land method by which the land value and the building value after considering depreciation would be the relevant factors to decide the market value. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the aforesaid decision in Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and others v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and others, AIR 1987 SC 66 , cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner according to him is in favour of the respondent herein, since, it emphasis the importance to determine the market value of the property. 15. Kishore Chand Kapoor and others v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and others, AIR 1987 SC 66 , cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner according to him is in favour of the respondent herein, since, it emphasis the importance to determine the market value of the property. 15. Thiru T.S.R. Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that as per the ruling of the Supreme Court the earlier decision rendered in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2004 dated 9.7.2004 would not be a res judicata, in deciding the Civil Revision Petition, and the previous order passed in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2004, would be treated as 'per incurium', since this Court, had decided the same as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in AIR 1967 SC 465 , instead of the latest decision rendered in Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and others v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and others, AIR 1987 SC 66 as the same was not cited in the said CRP by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein. 16. In the decision reported in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1955 SC 661 at page No. 670, it has been held as follows: (2) The Court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which, though not expressly overruled, cannot, in its opinion stand with a decision of the House of Lords; and (3) the Court is not bound to follow a decision of its own, if it is satisfied that the decision was given 'per incurium', e.g., where a statute or a rule having statutory effect which would have affected the decision was not brought, to the attention of the earlier Court. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that as far as the order of this Court passed in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2005 the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the matter as per law enunciated by the Supreme Court on the subject in Raghubans Narain v.The Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1967 SC 465 , while remanding the matter is concerned, it has to be considered only as 'per incurium' in view of the latest decision. But, when there is a specific direction, the Trial Court which is a subordinate Court cannot ignore it on the ground of 'per incurium', as it would amount to contempt. But, when there is a specific direction, the Trial Court which is a subordinate Court cannot ignore it on the ground of 'per incurium', as it would amount to contempt. But, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, in the light, of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 19S5 SC 661 and Shanmugham, C. C. v. T. Subramania Mudaliar (Died), 1996 (1) LW 42 , the earlier order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 104 of 2004 dated 9.7.2004, directing the Trial Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Judgment in Raghubans Narain v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1967 SC 465 , without referring the other decision Dr. Kishore Chand Kapoor and others v. Dharam Pal Kapoor and others, AIR 1987 SC 66 , is only per incurium as per this Court is concerned. 18. The Apex Court has held with regard to the determination of market value of a property as follows: "The owner or claimant should not be put to loss by under-valuation. But, at the same time the public exchequer should not put undue burden by excess valuation. It is the statutory duty of the Court to maintain balance between diverse interest. The claimant stands in the position of the plaintiff and the owners is on him to adduce necessary and relevant evidence in proof of objection for higher compensation. The Court below to scrutinize the evidence applying the arm chair test of prudent purchaser and applying the vendor, the true and fair market value should be arrived at. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that this decision is not applicable, since the ruling was given for assessing the market value of the acquired property under the Land Acquisition Act, in a different context. But the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is that the Court is bound to maintain, the balance between the diverse interest by applying the arm chair test of a prudent purchaser and a willing vendor which is squarely applicable to decide the just and fair price of the property." 19. But the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is that the Court is bound to maintain, the balance between the diverse interest by applying the arm chair test of a prudent purchaser and a willing vendor which is squarely applicable to decide the just and fair price of the property." 19. As per the above said decision rendered by the Apex Court, it is clear that the respondent being the proposed vendor is entitled to a just and fair price for his 6/20 share as per the prevailing market value. The learned Advocate Commissioner in his evidence adduced before the Trial Court, has deposed that he had personally visited the property and based on his enquiry conducted, he has stated that one Khader Mohideen was ready and willing to purchase the property for Rs.11 lakhs, one Dr. Subramaniam offered to purchase the land for Rs.10 lakhs. According to him, one Ganapathy, a broker offered to purchase property directly for a price of Rs.9 lakhs. Stating all those facts, the Commissioner has suggested Rs.9,00,000 to be fixed as market value of the property. But the Trial Court by the impugned order has decided that as highest offer may made as per the Commissioner's report was Rs.11 lakhs, the Court could decide the value of the property as Rs.11 lakhs and not Rs.9 lakhs as suggested by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the Trial Court, has fixed the value of 6/20 share belongs to the respondent at Rs.3,30,000 taking into consideration of the market value of the property at Rs.11,00,000. But it is relevant to note that the respondent, herein by his affidavit petition, has stated that the value of the property would be Rs.10,00,000 and he is prepared to pay Rs.7,00,000 for the 14/20 share belongs to the revision petitioner in the same ratio, if she is willing to sell her share to him and on that basis he has claimed Rs.3,00,000 for his 6/20 share from the petitioner. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there should be no unjust enrichment by either party. Though the evidence of Advocate Commissioner and the report submitted by the teamed counsel cannot be taken into consideration directly by fixing a price. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there should be no unjust enrichment by either party. Though the evidence of Advocate Commissioner and the report submitted by the teamed counsel cannot be taken into consideration directly by fixing a price. The affidavit filed by the respondent before the Trial Court stating that the value of the property would be Rs.10 lakhs, can be taken into consideration, since he is preparing to purchase the property as per his valuation stated above. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid statement made by the respondent herein by way of affidavit before the Trial Court is quite reasonable and also binding on him. Hence, this Court finds it reasonable to fix the market value at Rs.3,00,000 for the 6/20 share of the respondent as just and reasonable market, price and accordingly, the order has to be passed in the Civil Revision Petition. 20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed and the market value of 6/20 of the respondent's share is fixed at Rs.3,00,000 and if the said amount is deposited by the petitioner into Court or paid directly to the respondent within three months from the date of the order, the sale deed shall be executed for the 6/20 share belongs to the respondent herein as prayed for by the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to comply with the direction, the respondent can take steps to get suitable direction from the Court. There is no order as to costs.