JUDGMENT D. DASH, J : In this appeal the defendants of Title Suit No. 13 of 1982 of the Court of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh (as it was then) have filed are challenging the final decree passed in the said suit after an order upon acceptance of the report of the Civil Court Commissioner and making the preliminary decree final. 2.For the sake of convenience, clarity and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the Court below. 3.Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the properties belonging to the joint family. The extent of land which is the subject matter of the suit is Ac. 6.059 dec. situated in three different Mouza described in the schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the plaint. The movables described in the schedule ‘C’ of the plaint are also the subject matter of the suit. The admitted inter se relationship between the parties is that one Parikhita Sathua had two wives, namely, Kaincha and Hara. The plaintiff and defendant no. 7 are the son and daughter of Parikhita through Hara whereas defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are the children of Parikhita born thrugh wife Kaincha and defendant No. 8 is the daughter of defendant no. 1. In the said suit ultimately preliminary decree for partition was passed on 16.09.1986. thereafter the said preliminary decree has been made final upon acceptance of the repot of the survey knowing Commissioner, when he was found to have completed the job as ordained by the preliminary decree in allotting immovable properties to different parties in conformity with that. The same is now challenged in this appeal on the grounds as indicated in the memorandum of appeal. The same is now challenged in this appeal on the grounds as indicated in the memorandum of appeal. The important of those being culled out are the followings:- a)The division is illegal and unsustainable, inasmuch as, the appellants (defendants) have not got their legitimate share from the lands of Itamati and Pratap Prasad which are most valuable, with house and homestead; b)The division is illegal, inasmuch as the share allotted to defendant no.1 only contains a cowshed the valuation of which has been acquired with the pucca structure; c)The defendant No. 1 being the eldest member, he should have been given his share from the eastern portion of the homestead land; d)Land under Plot No. 192 should have been divided according to the convenience of the parties; and e)The defendant No. 1 having a large family and only 2 decimals of homestead land when has been allotted to him the same cannot go to accommodate the family and hence more homestead lands should have been allotted to him. 4.Learned counsel for the appellants in course of hearing just reiterated these grounds and his ultimate submission is for setting aside the final decree and remitting the matter back to the Court bellow for deputation of a survey knowing Commissioner afresh for allotment of the land to the parties in accordance with their respective share as determined in the preliminary decree, respecting possession of the parties and looking to their convenience as far as practicable and possible. 5.Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently refuted the said submission. According to her, the grounds of challenge made to the final decree are all vague. He submitted that each of those have been duly taken care of and addressed to by the original Court and finally viewing the best interest of all the parties looking at all practical angles, the final decree has been passed. According to her this move of filing of appeal is only to unnecessarily protract the litigation as much as possible so as to see that the lis does not attain its finality and the parties in advantageous position continue in that way where as those disadvantageous are ruined and ultimately deriving frustration no more pursue. 6.On such rival submission, it is now necessary to examine as to whether the grounds as stated above are legally tenable to upset the final decree passed in the suit. 6.On such rival submission, it is now necessary to examine as to whether the grounds as stated above are legally tenable to upset the final decree passed in the suit. The position of law is no longer res integra that in the final decree proceeding arising out of a suit for partition, the Court is to carry out the preliminary decree and make it final both in letter and spirit and following the directions given therein. So in view of grounds of challenge, the prime consideration in this appeal is as to whether the final decree drawn up in the case is in conformity with the preliminary decree or not. 7.Adverting to the factual aspects as necessary for the purpose, it is seen that the preliminary decree is dated 16.09.1986. In the said preliminary decree the plaintiff defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 6 each have been found entitled to 9/32 share in Schedule ‘A’ property except plot no. 143 and an area of Ac. 0.09 dec. from plot no. 288. The defendant nos. 2 to 5 and 7 have been found entitled to get 1/32 share out of Scheduled –A property. On an application being made before the Court to make the said preliminary decree final, the survey knowing Commissioner was deputed to inspect the properties and divide the same to the parties in accordance with their shares as indicated in the preliminary decree and furnish the allotment sheets, map etc. The Commissioner receiving the writ from the Court issued the notice to the parties and their concerned advocates fixing date for such inspection of the properties and asking the parties to supply their map, khatian, valuation list etc. if they so desired. As per the said date fixed, the Commissioner made the inspection. He has also gone to serve written notice on the parties requesting them to apprise him all those details to be taken into consideration in respect of the convenient enjoyment of the properties having least adverse affect. The parties supplied village map, khatian etc. which have been verified. After that the parties have been asked to submit their written statement as regards the valuation with necessary document in support of the same which they did not furnish in writing. However, their version to that effect were taken note of . The parties supplied village map, khatian etc. which have been verified. After that the parties have been asked to submit their written statement as regards the valuation with necessary document in support of the same which they did not furnish in writing. However, their version to that effect were taken note of . The Commissioner in his report has given the valuation of each item of the properties and those allotted to the parties. His report is to give compensation to the defendant who could not be given share in respect of some properties. The parties virtually appear to have consented for the said allotments. The detail report being submitted with all necessary documents annexed to it, the Court below invited objection, if any, from the parties. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 filed their objection with their view that the division as made by the Commissioner is not acceptable as it is not fair and in contradiction to the direction given in the preliminary decree and the law as well. They stated that defendant nos. 2 to 5 had not get their legitimate share from the land of Mauza Itamati and Pratap Prasad which are most valuable with house and homestead. They further stated that the structure standing on the land have not been properly valued. It has also been indicated that there stands no house on the portion of the land allotted to the petitioner and simply a cowshed remains over it; the valuation of which is meager in comparison to the pucca structure. The same claim has again been advanced that as the eldest son, the defendant no. 1 is entitled to get his share from the eastern portion of the homestead and it is said that the same is based on age old custom prevailing in the area. It is further stated that in village Itamati, there remains excess land of Ac. 0.01 dec. as has been stated in the report and that has not been divided. Defendant No. 1 claims to have made a well inside the plot of land incurring loan from the Co-Operative Bank. It is next stated that in the event the plot of land divided north-south with length east-west, the plot can be conveniently used as homestead as there is road on the eastern side of the plot. Defendant No. 1 claims to have made a well inside the plot of land incurring loan from the Co-Operative Bank. It is next stated that in the event the plot of land divided north-south with length east-west, the plot can be conveniently used as homestead as there is road on the eastern side of the plot. It is further stated in view of lesser extent of land being allotted to the defendant no. 1 who has his large family, they are unable to be accommodated. Next the allotment made by the Commissioner is said to be without taking into consideration the convenience of the parties. 8.It may be pertinent to state here that after the objection, the Court by order dated 27.02.1998 instead of accepting the report of the Commissioner directed to reallot the lands keeping in view the aspects- i) equal distribution of agricultural lands at village Itamati between the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant no. 6; (ii) to take into consideration and see that the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 6 get some rooms each and in case it is not possible the valuation be made so far as the rooms are concerned so that the party deprived would be paid with due compensation; and (iii) to keep in view the objection raised by defendant no. 1 regarding Balikudia and Pratap Prasad land and for necessary adjustment if so possible. The Commissioner has submitted his report afresh. In the instant case as it is seen that in course of argument and counter argument on the question of acceptance of the report of the Commissioner, the parties as well as their counsel made a request to the Presiding Officer of the Court to have a local inspection for just and proper appreciation of the case and that appears to be an honest attempt from both side to put a quiets to the lis. Learned counsel for the parties have no complain to that nor on its legality. Learned counsel for the parties have no complain to that nor on its legality. So the fact remains that in view of the unhesitating request from both the sides for proper appreciation of the matter of the acceptance of the report of the Commissioner, the Presiding Officer paid a visit to the spot and has indicated in detail in Para-7 of the order which runs as under :- “As per their request and in the interest of justice, I visited the locality and has seen the homestead land with structures and also the land and well situated in different villages which are situated nearby. After visit and after perusal of the Commissioner’s report, I think, the Commissioner has no other alternative than to allot the shares as mentioned in his report. The objection raised by defendants 1 to 3 are not tenable in law and facts. Similar objections have been raised by the defendants 1 to 5 on previous occasions and my predecessor in his order dated 27.02.1988 directed the Commissioner for equal distribution of agricultural land at village Itamati between the plaintiff, D.1 and D.6, while allotting the homestead lands, the Commissioner should take into consideration whether the plaintiff, D-1 and D-6 , got some rooms each and if it is not possible, the rooms should be properly valued and compensation should be given to the party who is debarred from getting the room. Lastly, he directed the Commissioner to keep in view the objections, raised by D-1 regarding Balikudia and Pratap Prasad land and if possible to make adjustments by allotting shares. The Commissioner has strictly followed the instructions, given by the Court on 27.02.1988 and allotted the shares correctly” 9.It has been found that the directions given to the Commissiner have all been carried out. As what ought to have been in the best interest of the parties looking to their convenience to the optimum level at the same time viewing the inconvenience to be share by all to some extent or other the division has finally been made. In respect of homestead land in particular the Court below have said that :- "So far as the homestead land is concerned, the structures that were standing on the land cannot be demolished. Hence, according to convenience, the Commissioner has allotted plot No. 1850 which is Ac 0.0.04 dec. In respect of homestead land in particular the Court below have said that :- "So far as the homestead land is concerned, the structures that were standing on the land cannot be demolished. Hence, according to convenience, the Commissioner has allotted plot No. 1850 which is Ac 0.0.04 dec. to plaintiff and D.6 as they are in possession of the same and plot No. 1949 measuring Ac. 0.02 dec. to D.1 after making proper valuation. I have also seen the land at village Pratap Prasad. The road runs from East to West and the land is situated from North to South. So, the land cannot be divided Est-West in length depriving one party to go to the road. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly divided the land from North to South having got the benefit of road which runs from East to West. The D.1 to 5 have themselves claim the well to be allotted in their name. Accordingly, the Commissioner allotted the well with land to them. 10.The grounds which are now raised in this appeal were earlier raised in the Court below and finding that those have been dully addressed to the best extent possible and that due regard has been given to all the directions of the Court, the report has been accepted when on local inspection of the property upon joint request, satisfaction has been arrived at that the ways adopted by the Commissioner serves the interest of the parties in conformity with the preliminary decree and not such glaring discrimination or infirmity has been noticed. It has further been found that Commissioner has no other alternative than the division he made in obedience to the directions of the Court. Therefore, the Court below having found those objections to be untenable has finally accepted the report of the Commissioner by overruling the objections raised against it. 11.Learned counsel for the appellant in course of argument has not been able to specifically point out as to where the Court below has actually erred and which aspect/s though ought have been taken into consideration has/have not been so done. 11.Learned counsel for the appellant in course of argument has not been able to specifically point out as to where the Court below has actually erred and which aspect/s though ought have been taken into consideration has/have not been so done. In fact, in the present appeal, there is not whisper that the report of the Commissioner is not in conformity with what has been ordained in the preliminary decree as well as the subsequent direction of the Court upon hearing the parties in the matter of objection to the first report of the Commissioner. When the inconvenience to the objector defendants and they being allotted with less valued property are projected as the ground to upset the final decree, the same as it appears has neither been established in the Court below by positive evidence to that effect nor anything has been placed before the Court to infer for a moment that there has been discrimination in the matter of distribution of immovable properties amongst the parties and the present appellants are the victims to that and in fact on local inspection, the Presiding Officer has observed all these complaints as unacceptable. In view of above, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the final decree is unsustainable in law merits no acceptance. The order of acceptance of report of the Commissioner is found to be free from any such infirmity or illegality. 12.For the aforesaid discussion the final decree passed by the Court below upon acceptance of the report of the survey knowing Commissioner having overruled the objections raised to it, is hereby confirmed. 13.In the result the appeal stands dismissed with cost. Appeal dismissed.