JUDGMENT This second appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtors aggrieved by the Executing Court allowing the execution petition filed for delivery of 1/5th share of the respondent-plaintiff and the same being confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 2. The substantial question of law that has been raised for consideration in this appeal reads as under: “Whether the Appellate Court committed an error in granting a share to the plaintiff in the house property by directing actual division as suggested by the Commissioner and that the report of the Commissioner and the order of the Appellate Court is unjust and inequitable?” 3 Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the facts are not in dispute insofar as the respondent-plaintiff being successful in getting the decree in his favour to an extent of 1/5th share of the plaintiff in the suit property but the Executing Court committed an error by relying on the Commissioner’s report and in the process, the plaintiff was given more than 1/5th share whereas the judgment-debtors who altogether were entitled to 4/5th share was given a lesser share and this amounts to inequality in the sense that the plaintiff could not have been give more than 1/5th share in the suit property when the defendants-judgment-debtors altogether were entitled to greater share of 4/5th. Elaborating his submission, it is argued that virtually the plaintiff gets 580 sq. ft. in the suit property whereas defendants-judgment-debtor who are entitled to 4/5th share get only 600 sq. ft. altogether and as such the executing Court could not have accepted the Commissioner’s report without examining this aspect of the matter and when the judgment-debtors were ready to purchase the share of the plaintiff which was only 1/5th, the Executing Court could have considered the said prayer and it was not done and similar error was also committed by the lower Appellate Court wile confirming the order of the executing Court. Therefore, learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on ILR 2008 Kar 13, argued that the Courts below were in error in not taking note of the fact that the suit property was found to be not devisable by the Court Commissioner and under those circumstances, the judgment-debtors ought to have been given a chance of purchasing the plaintiff’s share as well. Moreover, the appellant is residing on the said land since 50 years whereas decree-holders have got independent house and this aspect also ought to have been taken note of by the Courts below. 4. On the other hand learned Counsel Sri. F.V. Patil, for respondent referring to the Order 26, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 submitted that where the Court Commissioner finds that it is not possible to divide the property into as many shares as directed by the order by which the commission was issued, the Commissioner so allotted such shares to the parties and may if authorised thereto by the said order award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalising the value of the shares, and also referring to Rule 14(2) submission made is that in the instant case, the report of the Commissioner was carefully considered by the Executing Court along with the objections raised by the judgment-debtors and ultimately, the Executing Court accepted the Commissioner’s report and has even observed that even in the matter of appointment of Court Commissioner, no objection was raised by judgment-debtor 4 nor the integrity of the Court Commissioner was questioned by the judgment-debtors. Under the circumstances the order passed by the Executing Court accepting Commissioner’s report cannot be faulted nor the view taken by the lower Appellate Court can be held to be perverse. Both the Courts below have taken note of the facts and the situation of the suit property, which was found to be in 3 numbers by the Court Commissioner. Apart from this further submission made is that Parts I and II of the suit property together valued more than Part III and it was only Part III that was given to the plaintiff and as the share given to the plaintiff was found to be in excess of 1/5th share of the plaintiff, the Commissioner has also directed the decree-holder to pay the excess value of the share to the judgment-debtors and as such neither the report of the Commissioner nor the view taken by the Courts below can be held to be erroneous either on facts or in law. As such, the appeal lacks merit. 5. As such, the appeal lacks merit. 5. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the submission put forward and the decision cited and the provisions of law referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the report of the Commissioner which is to be found at page 48 of the paper book and also the finding of the Court’s below, I am of the view that when the Commissioner’s report has not been questioned by the judgment-debtors as regards the integrity of the Commissioner in drawing up of the said report in the presence of the parties with the assistance of the engineer, I am of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court found it justifiable to accept the report of the Commissioner and insofar as the appellant making a request to buy the share of the plaintiff is concerned, no such stand taken by the appellant is seen in the order of the Commissioner nor any reference is made to the said effect and so also the Courts below nowhere has stated that the appellant was ready to buy the share of the plaintiff. Having regard to the above fats, I am of the view that the substantial question of law raised has to be answered against the appellant following the view taken by the Courts below. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no application to the instant case as the facts of the said case are entirely different. Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.