ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final decree dated 30.11.2007 as upheld by the appellate judgment dated 23.4.2015. 2. The respondent-Smt. Sugra filed a suit for partition; the suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 30.8.1999. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the First Appellate Court and she was held entitled to ?rd share. 3. In the second appeal, it was clarified that the plaintiff would be entitled to ?rd share of Noor Mohammed, who had ½ share in the suit property and the appeal was disposed of. 4. The appellant herein filed Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed with liberty to file review petition. The review petition filed by the appellant was rejected by this Court by order dated 23.1.2013, against which, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition, which was also rejected. 5. Based on the preliminary decree, the trial court appointed local commissioner and the local commissioner gave report dated 31.10.2007 proposing a land ad measuring 29' x 28' as share of the plaintiff based on the decree passed in her favour. 6. The appellant raised objections, however, the trial court while rejecting the objections raised by the appellant, passed a final decree based on the Commissioner's report. 7. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed first appeal. 8. 6. The appellant raised objections, however, the trial court while rejecting the objections raised by the appellant, passed a final decree based on the Commissioner's report. 7. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed first appeal. 8. The first appellate court, after hearing the parties, came to the following conclusion and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant :- mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA tgka rd vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ dk iz'u gS fd dfe'uj us tks izLrko fn;k gS mlesa okfnuh dks nks jkLrksa okyh dherh Hkwfe fn;s tkuk izLrkfor fd;k gS ijUrq bldk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha crk;k gSA bl laca/k esa vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; us viuk leqfpr fu"d"kZ fn;k gS fd okfnuh ds fy;s tks Hkwfe izLrkfor dh xbZ gS mlesa dfe'uj us lkE;rk ds fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij viuh cqf) vkSj foosd dk iz;ksx fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; dk Li"V er gS fd dfe'uj ds izLrko ds vuqlkj 5206-5 oxZ QqV Hkwfe esa edku cuk gqvk gS ftlesa vk/kk fgLlk Lo0 uwj eksgEen mQZ uwjk dk gSA izkjafHkd fMfØ ds vuqlkj bl vk/ks fgLls esa ls 1@3 fgLlk okfnuh dks fn;k tkuk gSA dfe'uj us vius foosd vkSj dkS'ky ls 28 QqV xq.kk 29 QqV vFkkZr~ 812 oxZ QqV Hkwfe okfnuh dks foHkktu esa fn;k tkuk izLrkfor fd;k gS tcfd 1@3 fgLls ds vuqlkj 867 oxZ QqV Hkwfe okfnuh dks nh tkuh pkfg;s FkkA bl izdkj 55 oxZ QqV Hkwfe okfnuh dks de fn;k tkuk dfe'uj us izLrkfor fd;k tks de blfy;s fn;k tkuk izLrkfor fd;k gS fd bl Hkwfe ds nks rjQ lM+d gS ftlls Li"V gS fd dfe'uj us U;k;laxr rjhds ls viuk foHkktu izLrko cuk;k gS blfy, vihykaV dh vksj ls izLrqr bl rdZ esa dksbZ lkj ugha gSA tgka rd dCts dk iz'u gS rks ;g U;k;ky; }kjk fof/kd :i ls foHkkftr fgLlk gS blfy, bl ij okfnuh dks dkfct djk;k tk;sxkA tgka rd bl lEifRr dh fuykeh fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS] Li"V gS oknxzLr lEifr ds rhu fgLls fd;s tkus gS vkSj bl ekeys esa ,slh dksbZ fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr ugha gS fd foHkktu gksuk laHko u gks vkSj fQj fookfnr lEifRr fjgk;'kh edku gS blfy, bldh lkoZtfud fuykeh fd;k tkuk mfpr Hkh ugha gS D;ksafd dfe'uj ds izLrko ds vuqlkj mldk foHkktu laHko gSA tgka rd vU; izHkkfor O;fDr;ksa dks volj fn;s tkus dk iz'u gS rks dfe'uj us nksuksa i{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.k dks uksfVl nsdj fookfnr lEifRr dk fujh{k.k vkSj uki tks[k djds viuk izLrko cuk;k gS ftls eSa gj izdkj ls U;k;laxr gksuk ikrk gw¡A vr% fo}ku vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o vafre fMfØ ;qfDr;qDr vkSj fof/k lEer gS ftlesa bl U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha blfy, vihykFkhZ dh vihy lkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below were not justified in passing the final decree based on the Commissioner's report and allotting land to the plaintiff, which is quite valuable and that the objections raised by the appellant were not appropriately considered by two courts below and it was prayed that the appeal be admitted. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, inasmuch as, the Commissioner has given his report, which has been dealt with by both the courts below and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. From perusal of the Commissioner Report, it is apparent that most of the land in question is dotted with construction and admittedly the plaintiff had only 1/6th share in the entire property and out of the entire property, the land proposed by the Commissioner is least constructed and therefore, the same was proposed by the Commissioner for being allotted to the plaintiff. The only objection raised by the appellant pertained to the fact that the land allotted was quite valuable and therefore, the same should not have been allotted and on the contrary, a proposal was made that the land may be put to auction. 13. Admittedly, the dispute in the suit pertained to only ?rd share of the plaintiff and for that purpose, proposal of auction appears to be wholly preposterous. Except for indicating that the land was valuable, no material in this regard has been produced and no counter proposal except for suggestion of auctioning the property in question has been given by the appellant and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that the two courts below committed any error in passing the final decree and dismissing the appeal. 14. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. The record of the trial court be sent back immediately. Appeal dismissed for want of substantial question of law.