Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 605 (KAR)

M. S. Ramchandra v. Sampthu Lakshmi And Others

2020-03-02

S.G.PANDIT

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.1 in FDP No.40/2014 on the file of XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. The petitioner herein is respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is petitioner therein in the above stated FDP. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10B of CPC for appointment of Commissioner for division of the property. It is his submission that the Trial Court while allowing the application for appointment of Commissioner directed the Commissioner to find out feasibility of division of the property and to assess the present value of the property. During the course of the order, the Court has observed that it is just and proper to appoint Court Commissioner to assess the valuation of the suit property, so that the property can be put to public auction and then consideration amount can be divided between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the valuation of the property be obtained and after obtaining valuation, the same may be put to both the parties and if one of them is willing to purchase the share of the other party, it could be offered to him. Further he submits that there is no feasibility of division of the property. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the value of the property be assessed and thereafter the property be offered to both the parties, and if the matter is not amicably settled, then the property be put to auction. He also admits that there is no feasibility of the division of the property. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view, that there is no necessity for the Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court under the impugned order to find out feasibility of the division of the property as both the learned counsel submitted that there is no feasibility of division of the property. Further the Commissioner/the Assistant Executive Engineer of the BBMP could assess the present value of the property and after obtaining the present value of the property, the Court could offer the same to both the parties for purchase of the share of the other party. If one of them offers to purchase the property and if the other party agrees to the same, it could be sold in favour of one of the party. If no amicable settlement is arrived at after obtaining the value of the property, then the Court can put the same to public auction and the consideration amount be divided among both the parties. 8. It is stated that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question and all others except the respondent herein have relinquished their share in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner is in possession of the property and all others are ready to relinquish their right in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be given preference at the time of sale of the property. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.