JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. The legal representatives of deceased defendants No. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 39/1993, have preferred this second appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 259/2006 dated 22.10.2008 by Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Yellapur, by which, order dated 22.07.1999 passed in F.D.P. No. 3/1996, has been confirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial Court. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 5 are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 39/1993. They filed a suit against Appayya and Honnappa, whose legal representatives are appellants herein and Ravalappa, who is purchaser of one of the items of suit schedule property, before the Court of Munsiff at Haliyal. By judgment and decree dated 19.03.1996 suit was decreed declaring that plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 and 3 therein had 1/3rd share each in suit schedule properties. A direction was issued to draw up a preliminary decree in the aforesaid terms. Thereafter plaintiffs filed Final Decree Proceedings (F.D.P. No. 3/1996) before the trial Court seeking division of their 1/3rd share by metes and bounds. In the said proceeding, trial Court appointed the Tahsildar as a Court Commissioner to divide landed properties and one Sri H.S. Yogesh, Advocate of Haliyal Bar, as the Commissioner to divide 'A' schedule properties being the house properties at Basavalli village at Haliyal taluk. That order was assailed by appellants herein in R.A. No. 259/2006. By judgment and decree dated 22.10.2008, the appeal filed by appellants herein has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree of the Appellate Court confirming the order of trial Court passed in Final Decree Proceedings, this second appeal has been preferred. 4. At this stage, genealogy and relationship of parties may be noted. One Vasappa Marathi and Tulsavva had three daughters and three sons. Vasappa Marathi died in the year 1968. His wife Tulsavva had predeceased him. Nagappa, Appayya and Honnappa are their three sons. Bayawwa, Sunandabai and Kamalabai are their three daughters. The legal representatives of deceased Nagappa filed suit seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in suit properties against Appayya and Honnappa, two other brothers of Nagappa. That suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19.03.1996. Thereafter plaintiffs filed Final Decree Proceedings. Significantly, in O.S. No. 39/1993 daughters of Vasappa Marathi were not arrayed as parties. The legal representatives of deceased Nagappa filed suit seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in suit properties against Appayya and Honnappa, two other brothers of Nagappa. That suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19.03.1996. Thereafter plaintiffs filed Final Decree Proceedings. Significantly, in O.S. No. 39/1993 daughters of Vasappa Marathi were not arrayed as parties. No share was allotted to them in suit schedule properties, which are admittedly ancestral joint family properties. During the pendency of this appeal daughters of Vasappa Marathi, namely, Bayawwa, Sunandabai and Kamalabai filed an application seeking impleadment in these proceedings. By order dated 11.12.2013 this Court impleaded them as respondents No. 9 to 11 in this appeal. The three daughters have also filed O.S. No. 32/2000 seeking partition and separate possession of their share in suit schedule properties. That suit is pending adjudication before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Haliyal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Appellants' counsel submitted that trial Court has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 54 of the (Karnataka Amendment) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.' for brevity) while passing the order dated 22.07.1999, appointing Tahsildar as Court Commissioner and one of the Advocates of Haliyal Bar as another Court Commissioner to divide the landed and house properties respectively. He submitted that it is the Court which has to divide properties by metes and bounds and the said powers of Court cannot be delegated to Tahsildar or any other person appointed as the Commissioner. He, therefore, contended that order dated 22.07.1999 being contrary to Section 54 of the (Karnataka Amendment) of C.P.C., could not have been affirmed by First Appellate Court. Hence, he submitted that substantial question of law would arise in this appeal, requiring admission of the matter for a detailed hearing. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 supported the judgment of First Appellate Court confirming the order of trial Court dated 22.07.1999. He also contended that the daughters, who have got themselves impleaded in this appeal have not assailed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 39/1993 by Munsiff Court at Haliyal, which decree has attained finality, and therefore, they cannot now seek any share in suit schedule properties. He also contended that the daughters, who have got themselves impleaded in this appeal have not assailed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 39/1993 by Munsiff Court at Haliyal, which decree has attained finality, and therefore, they cannot now seek any share in suit schedule properties. He contended that the daughters have filed O.S. No. 32/2000 before trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties and they are at liberty to prosecute that case. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submitted that the property purchased by respondent No. 6 herein from original defendant No. 1 may be allotted to respondent No. 6 at the time of actual division of suit schedule properties to the extent that he has purchased from original defendant No. 1 and or to the extent of the latter's share therein. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 9, 10 and 11 submitted that plaintiff deliberately did not impleaded daughters of Vasappa in the suit. They are entitled to a share in suit schedule properties as legal representatives of Vasappa Marathi. Even at the stage of Final Decree Proceedings, share of parties can be modified by addition of parties or by deletion of parties and this Court has therefore impleaded the daughters of Vasappa to this appeal. They may be impleaded in Final Decree Proceedings. The shares of parties may be modified and thereafter division of properties by metes and bounds could take place. 9. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of material on record, it is noted that no doubt parties to O.S. No. 39/1993 were only the sons of Vasappa Marathi. His three daughters were not arrayed as parties in the said suit. Trial Court has proceeded to divide properties between three sons of Vasappa, namely, Nagappa, Appayya and Honnappa to an extent of 1/3rd share each. But the fact remains that daughters of Vasappa, who is since dead, were also entitled to share in the share of Vasappa by virtue of notional partition, which has not been made. It may be that they have filed O.S. No. 32/2000 before trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of their suit properties, but the fact remains that they have been impleaded by this Court as respondents No. 9 to 11 in this appeal. It may be that they have filed O.S. No. 32/2000 before trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of their suit properties, but the fact remains that they have been impleaded by this Court as respondents No. 9 to 11 in this appeal. In the circumstances, respondents No. 9 to 11 are at liberty to implead themselves in Final Decree Proceedings. When they are impleaded, in the Final Decree Proceedings, trial Court would have to modify the shares of parties. 10. Having regard to the fact that Vasappa died leaving behind female heirs under Section6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity), prior to its amendment made on 09.09.2005, notional partition had to be made between Vasappa and his children. In the circumstances, trial Court is directed to effect notional partition and assign shares to each of the sons of Vasappa and each of the daughters of Vasappa. Prima facie, I find that in a notional partition between Vasappa and his three sons, each would get 1/4th share, and 1/4th share of Vasappa has to be re-divided between his heirs, namely, three daughters and three sons as his wife had predeceased him in which case, each daughter would get 1/24th share and each son would get in addition to 1/4th share in their own right as a co-parcener 1/24th share in the share of Vasappa. 11. Coming to the other contention raised by learned counsel for appellants, it is submitted that when the trial Court appointed Tahsildar as a Court Commissioner and one of the members of Haliyal Bar as the court Commissioner to divide the landed and house properties respectively, it had delegated its powers to said Commissioners, which is contrary to Section 54 (Karnataka Amendment) of C.P.C. Section 54 of the (Karnataka Amendment) of C.P.C. reads as under: "54. Partition of estate or separation of share. Partition of estate or separation of share. - Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share of such an estate shall be made by the Court in accordance with the law if any, for the time being in force relating to the partition or the separate possession of shares, and if necessary on the report of a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Tahsildar or such other person as the Court may appoint as Commissioner in that behalf." It is stated in Section 54 of C.P.C. that the division of suit properties by metes and bounds would have to be made by Court and if necessary, Court can take the services of a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Tahsildar or such other person as the Court may appoint as Commissioner in that behalf. 12. In the order dated 22.07.1999 all that the trial Court has done is to appoint the Tahsildar as a Court Commissioner to submit a report with regard to proposed division of landed properties and one of the members of Haliyal Bar as the Court Commissioner to submit a report on proposed division of house properties. Nothing further has been done by trial Court. Mere appointment of a Court Commissioner cannot be contrary to Section 54 of the (Karnataka Amendment) of C.P.C. In fact, what the Court has done is in consonance with the amended provision. The Court Commissioners have to visit the spot, carry out measurements and survey and submit their respective reports to Court. Thereafter, objections, if any, would have to be called to the reports and after considering objections and hearing respective parties, the trial Court will have to give a finding on Commissioners' report, as to whether they could be accepted or not. But, by filing regular appeal against the order dated 22.07.1999 appellants have, in fact, pre-empted all subsequent proceedings, which could have taken place on the appointment of Commissioner. Regular Appeal filed by appellants herein and also the second appeal filed by appellants before this Court are totally mis-conceived and without understanding the scope of Section 54 of the (Karnataka Amendment) of C.P.C. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Regular Appeal filed by appellants herein and also the second appeal filed by appellants before this Court are totally mis-conceived and without understanding the scope of Section 54 of the (Karnataka Amendment) of C.P.C. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. By filing successive appeals, appellants have delayed the entire proceedings and procrastinated in the matter. Therefore, appeal is dismissed by confirming judgment of First Appellate Court as well as the order dated 22.07.1999 passed by trial Court. The appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. However, I refrain from imposing cost on appellants herein. 13. As far as respondent No. 6 is concerned, he is at liberty to make his submission with regard to the exact portion of suit schedule property which he has purchased, to be allotted to him, in Final Decree Proceedings. 14. As the suit is of the year 1993 and Final Decree Proceedings is of the year 1996, having regard to the long lapse of time, the trial Court, after passing another preliminary decree with regard to modification of shares between the parties, is requested to pass fresh orders with regard to appointment of Court Commissioner/s, as the case may be, to divide landed and house properties between the parties. 15. As the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court at Haliyal on 02.03.2016, without expecting any separate notice from that Court. Trial Court is directed to dispose of the Final Decree Proceedings as expeditiously as possible.