ORDER 1. This first appeal has been filed, assailing judgment and final decree of partition dated 27.05.2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Tonk in Civil Suit No.58/2005 titled as Ahmed Sayed & Ors. Vs. Shekh Mohd. & Ors. The property in question comprises residential house and five shops situated at Guljar Bagh, Tonk. Parties are muslim and governed by muslim personal law of succession. 2. The relevant facts, required to be noticed for purpose of present first appeal are that property in question belongs to one Shri. Mohd. Sayeed @ Kale Miya. After his death, he was survived by his three sons namely Ahmed Sayed (herein appellant No.1), Shekh Modh. Jahid (herein respondent No.1) and Mohd. Sadik (herein respondent No.2) and four daughters namely Sabatinussia (herein appellant No.2), Jarena and Jakiya (herein respondent Nos.3 and 4) and Jamilunissa (now deceased and represented through respondent Nos.5 to 9). It is undisputed and rather admitted position between parties that out of properties of father, one shop No.1 had been given to waqf during life time of father and as such this shop is not available for partition between parties. It is also not in dispute that one another shop No.5 was given to respondent defendant No.2- Mohd. Sadik with consent of all the heirs and in lieu thereof, he relinquished his claim of share in properties of father. Thus, factual position as emerged with regard to properties for partition and family members is that the suit property comprising house and three shops were to be divided among two sons and four daughters of Shri. Mohd. Sayeed @ Kale Miya. 3. According to law of succession in muslims, son gets double share to the share of daughter. The properties were equally divided in eight shares, 2/8th-2/8th share goes to two sons and 1/8th-1/8th share goes to four daughters. Since two daughters respondent-defendant Nos.3 and 4 relinquished their 1/8th-1/8th share to respondent-defendant No.1 son, therefore, he got 4/8th share. The 1/8th share of daughter Jamilunissa (represented through respondent-defendant Nos.5 to 9) was relinquished to appellant-plaintiff No.1, hence, appellant-plaintiff No.1 got 3/8th share and appellant-plaintiff No.2 got 1/8th share. Since two daughters respondent-defendant Nos.3 and 4 relinquished their 1/8th-1/8th share to respondent-defendant No.1 son, therefore, he got 4/8th share. The 1/8th share of daughter Jamilunissa (represented through respondent-defendant Nos.5 to 9) was relinquished to appellant-plaintiff No.1, hence, appellant-plaintiff No.1 got 3/8th share and appellant-plaintiff No.2 got 1/8th share. Accordingly, the trial Court declared share of parties in suit property by way of passing of preliminary decree for partition dated 08.02.2006 in the manner that appellant-plaintiff No.1 would get 3/8th share; Appellant-plaintiff No.2 would get 1/8th share and respondent- defendant No.1 would get 4/8th share. 4. The judgment and preliminary decree for partition dated 08.02.2006 was accepted by all parties and same was not challenged by either of parties as such same has attained finality and there is no dispute between the parties about getting shares in suit property as allocated under the preliminary decree for partition. 5. In suit for partition or separation of share, prayer is not only for declaration of plaintiffs share in suit properties but also division of his share by metes and bounds. In suit for partition, Court at first stage decides the share of plaintiffs in suit property and resultantly, in first stage "preliminary decree", declaring shares of parties is passed under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC. The process of preparing final decree, is a consequential division of suit property by metes and bounds, in furtherance to shares declared in preliminary decree. After passing preliminary decree for partition, as per Order 26 Rule 13 CPC, the Court appoints a Commissioner to make actual and final partition of immovable property. Order 26 Rule 14 CPC provides a procedure of Commissioner that Commissioner shall, after holding an enquiry as may be necessary, divide the property into as many as shares as may be directed by preliminary decree under which Commission was issued and shall allot such shares to parties. The Commissioner prepares his report and transmit same to the Court. The Court after hearing any objection which parties may make to the report of Commissioner, shall confirm, vary or set aside the report of Commissioner. The Court after placing reliance upon report of Commissioner as it is or with modification, passes final decree for partition accordingly. The Commissioner prepares his report and transmit same to the Court. The Court after hearing any objection which parties may make to the report of Commissioner, shall confirm, vary or set aside the report of Commissioner. The Court after placing reliance upon report of Commissioner as it is or with modification, passes final decree for partition accordingly. The perception of law is that the endeavour of Court should be, while passing final decree for partition by metes and bounds, to protect, preserve and respect possession of parties as far as possible. While so protecting the possession of parties, there has to be equalization of shares which has been recognized in law "by making a provision for payment of owelty". The aforementioned procedure of partition of immovable properties is provided in law stands substantiated by judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Vs. Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. [ (2009) 9 SCC 689 ] and M.L.Subbaraya Setty (Dead) & Ors. Vs. M.L.Nagappa Setty (Dead) & Ors. [ (2002) 4 SCC 743 ]. 6. In present case, since both parties agreed to the preliminary decree for partition dated 08.02.2006, the trial Court appointed Court Commissioner to prepare a report of final partition of property in question according to the shares declared in preliminary decree for partition. Both appellants-plaintiffs gave their consent and agreed before the Court Commissioner to have a joint share i.e. 3/8th + 1/8th = 4/8th. Thus, both the parties agreed that the property was required to be divided in two equal shares, it means 4/8th share to both appellants-plaintiffs and 4/8th share to respondent-defendant No.1 The Commissioner, after giving notice for inspection to both parties, made inspection and prepared a report dated 06.03.2006 of partition with a site map. Report of Commissioner was placed on record before the trial Court to pass a final decree of partition. 7. Appellants-plaintiffs submitted objections dated 22.03.2006 against report of Commissioner. Respondents-defendants submitted their reply to objections. The trial Court heard counsel for both parties on the objections and after considering the report of Court Commissioner, the trial Court passed judgment dated 27.05.2006 and thereby final decree for partition as per metes and bounds has been passed. 7. Appellants-plaintiffs submitted objections dated 22.03.2006 against report of Commissioner. Respondents-defendants submitted their reply to objections. The trial Court heard counsel for both parties on the objections and after considering the report of Court Commissioner, the trial Court passed judgment dated 27.05.2006 and thereby final decree for partition as per metes and bounds has been passed. The trial Court has slightly differed from report of Commissioner and in order to give equalization of share, gave some additional portion to plaintiffs, alongwith the portion as suggested by Commissioner in his report. As per final decree for partition dated 27.05.2006, the house and three shops have been order to be divided by metes and bounds in following manner:- According to the final decree for partition, the house has been divided in equal two shares i.e. 4/8th-4/8th ratio. Appellants-plaintiffs have got two patti posh room, one tin sheded chabutra, kitchen, W.C., B.T. and one room like shop in eastern side portion and along with shop No.1 and half share in shop No.3. The appellants-plaintiffs have been given exclusive access for ingress and egress to their portion from eastern side as also given a common right to access from northern side through main entrance. The Respondent No.1 has got western side portion comprising two kutcha room with front open chowk, having right to access through main entrance from northern side and along with shop No.2 and half share in shop No.3. Since the main entrance from northern side, has been left common so the portion of chowk behind the main entrance is also common. To better understand the final partition by metes and bounds, map appended with report of Court Commissioner may be seen. Since the trial Court has not accepted the report of Court Commissioner as it is but varied with the Commissioner's report in the mannter that both patti posh room have been given in share of appellants- plainiffs whereas Commissioner proposed only one patti posh room and half share of patti posh room in share of plaintiffs. The division of shares as prescribed in judgment and final decree for partition stands much more clear and ocular with support of site map appended with report of Court Commissioner and site map is part and parcel of the judgment and final decree for partition. 8. The division of shares as prescribed in judgment and final decree for partition stands much more clear and ocular with support of site map appended with report of Court Commissioner and site map is part and parcel of the judgment and final decree for partition. 8. Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal, assailing judgment and final decree for partition dated 27.05.2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Tonk in Civil Suit No.58/2005. 9. During pendency of appeal, respondent-defendant No.1 proposes to exchange his 4/8th share with 4/8th share of appellants-plaintiffs and parties explored the possibility of compromise, but later on, appellants-plaintiffs declined to accept the exchange offer. Since parties could not amicably settled dispute of final partition despite of the fact that both parties have accepted the decree for preliminary partition, hence, this Court heard counsel for both parties on merits in relation to final decree for partition. 10. Appellants-plaintiffs have placed certain additional documents along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This Court, vide order dated 08.03.2022 observed that relevancy of additional documents shall be considered while deciding first appeal on merits. 11. Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs has produced additional documents, in order to put an offer to respondents- defendants, on the basis of certain subsequent events occurred after passing final decree for partition dated 27.05.2006. 12. It may be noted that during pendency of this appeal, there was no interim stay on alienation/transfer of properties which came in respective shares of parties vide impugned final decree. It appears that respondent-defendant No.1 has entered into an agreement to sale with one Mohd. Alsam in relation to one shop came in his share and one separate civil suit for specific performance was filed by Mohd. Alsam against respondent No.1. The civil suit for specific performance was decreed vide judgment dated 07.04.2016 in the manner that decree for specific performance shall remain operative subject to decision of first appeal against final decree for partition. If shop remains in share of respondent No.1, decree for specific performance can be executed albeit purchasers would be entitled to get refund of their sale amount along with interest. If shop remains in share of respondent No.1, decree for specific performance can be executed albeit purchasers would be entitled to get refund of their sale amount along with interest. Learned counsel for appellants- plaintiffs has placed a copy of judgment dated 07.04.2016 on record to make an offer that appellant is ready and willing to purchase the shop of respondent No.1 but in the opinion of this Court, such offer has no relevance with the issue of partition, hence, need not be considered. 13. Appellant-plaintiff has produced another additional document of sale deed dated 04.05.2011 through which respondent No.1 has sold his half share in shop No.3 to one Javed Mosad. Counsel for appellants-plaintiffs offered that plaintiffs are ready to purchase the half share of shop No.3 as remaining half share of shop No.3 already has come to their share. In this regard, it may be noted that appellants-plaintiffs have already filed a civil suit against respondent No.1, claiming preferential right to purchase half undivided share of shop No.3, which is pending before the trial Court. A certified copy of civil suit filed on 10.07.2017 has been placed on record as additional document. In civil suit, the trial Court has passed an injunction order dated 13.09.2019 and copy of injunction order has also been placed on record as additional document. Therefore, the offer to purchase half share of shop No.3, is also not required to be considered in this appeal. 14. Thus, as far as additional documents of sale deed dated 04.05.2011, civil suit filed on 10.07.2017 and injunction order dated 13.09.2019 are concerned, same have no relevance with the issue of partition. If, plaintiffs would succeed in their civil suit claiming preferential right to purchase half undivided share of shop No.3, the trial Court would pass appropriate orders and therefore, offer given by counsel for appellants-plaintiffs is not required to be considered in present appeal. That apart, the offer proposed by counsel for appellants, firstly to purchase shop No.2 which came in share of respondent No.1 and secondly to have preferential right to purchase half share of shop No.3 have arisen out of subsequent events does not affect the merits of the impugned final decree for partition in any manner. It is for the parties, to consider, out of Court either to accept or to not accept the offers given by appellants-plaintiffs. 15. It is for the parties, to consider, out of Court either to accept or to not accept the offers given by appellants-plaintiffs. 15. In such view of matter, additional documents produced by appellants do not have any relevance to challenge the impugned decree for partition. This Court, in present first appeal is examining the legality, validity and equalization of distribution of shares by metes and bounds between parties through the impugned decree for partition. 16. Learned counsel for appellants fairly submits that at the time of filing of this first appeal, appellants were interested in pressing their objections filed before the trial Court against the report of Commissioner. At that time, appellants took a stand that they reside in the western side portion of house in kutcha rooms, so claimed share in western portion also. Secondly, appellants were interested in taking shop No.2, which has been given in the share of respondent No.1 by the trial Court and in lieu of shop No.2, appellants were ready to handover the possession of shop No.1 to respondent No.1. At that time, appellant No.2 was not satisfied with the portion of room marked as EFGH given in her share. However, after filing of present appeal and having passed near about 15 years, now appellants are not interested in pressing their objections raised either before the trial Court or in present first appeal, assailing final judgment and decree for partition. It so, for reasons that during pendency of appeal when respondent No.1 offered to exchange his share with share of appellants, appellants declined to accept such exchange offer. Thus, now during course of final hearing of this appeal, counsel for appellants submits on instructions of appellants that they have no objection to maintain allocation of shares in suit property as granted by the trial Court by way of impugned judgment and final decree for partition dated 27.05.2006. 17. That apart, this Court examined the merits of impugned judgment and final decree, it reveals that the trial Court has dealt with each and every objection of appellants on merits. Thus, even if impugned judgment is tested on anvil of merits, same do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, perversity and any kind of jurisdictional error. 17. That apart, this Court examined the merits of impugned judgment and final decree, it reveals that the trial Court has dealt with each and every objection of appellants on merits. Thus, even if impugned judgment is tested on anvil of merits, same do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, perversity and any kind of jurisdictional error. Moreover, now, when counsel for appellants has also accepted the impugned judgment and final decree for partition, there is no issue to either modify or vary or to make any change in final decree for partition, as such same deserves to be affirmed as it is. 18. Having considered submissions of counsel for both parties and after appreciation of impugned judgment and material on record, this Court do not find any factual or legal error in judgment and final decree for partition dated 27.05.2006 as such the same is hereby affirmed. The first appeal is found to be devoid of merits and same is accordingly dismissed. Decree be framed accordingly. 19. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 20. Parties shall bear their own cost and expenses of litigation. 21. Record of the trial Court be returned back forthwith.