JUDGMENT : T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. 1. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in A.S.Nos.30 of 2016 and 28 of 2017 confirming the findings rendered in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.1080 of 2004 in O.S.No.1292 of 2004, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 have preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.244 of 2021 and the 15 th respondent herein preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.116 of 2026. 2. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and a counter claim was also filed by the contesting defendants. On considering both side evidence and documents, the preliminary decree was passed allotting shares. Thereafter, the final decree application in I.A.No.1080 of 2004 was filed and the Commissioner was also appointed. The Commissioner had measured the property in the presence of both parties as well as their counsels. Thereafter, the Commissioner had filed a report submitting a suggestion to divide the property conveniently considering each of sharers. Accordingly, the Commissioner's report along with sketch was produced before the court. Based on that, the trial judge had passed the final decree in I.A.No.1080 of 2004 by allotting shares to all the parties to the proceedings as suggested by the Commissioner for the convenient sake of parties. Aggrieved BY that findings, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 30 of 2016 and the 15 th respondent herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 28 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode respectively. 3. On hearing both sides, the first appellate judge held that objections raised by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 as well as 15 th respondent herein was not sustainable one. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed by confirming the findings of trial judge. Against which, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 have preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No. 244 of 2021 and the 15 th respondent herein had preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No. 116 of 2026. 4. The learned counsel for appellants argue that while measuring the property, the Commissioner has not compared with old and new survey numbers and erroneously concluded that 12 cents belong to them in R.S. No.240/3. Therefore, they have raised objections, but it was not considered by the court below. Hence, they prayed to set aside the findings rendered in the final decree passed by the courts below. 5. Therefore, they have raised objections, but it was not considered by the court below. Hence, they prayed to set aside the findings rendered in the final decree passed by the courts below. 5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and 6 raised objections stating that even before the courts below, to substantiate their arguments, the appellants have not furnished any of the revenue records to show that they have owned the land on the southern boundary of the second item of suit property in R.S. No.240/3 and also not produced any relevant document to show the said southern boundary, without which the contention of appellants not to be accepted. Therefore, the courts below rightly disagreed with the objections raised by the appellants, which requires no interference. 6. Sisters of the plaintiffs, who are ranked as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit and from them, the purchaser/15 th respondent herein purchased a portion of property through sale deed. Therefore, he raised objections with regard to Commissioner's suggestion with regard to division of property and for the remaining extent, he filed a specific performance suit. He obtained a decree in respect of sale agreement. Therefore, he raised objections for the division of property as suggested by the commissioner as well as final decree passed by the trial court as such is not acceptable one for the reason that the larger extent allotted to the parties would not have been used for division among themselves. Therefore, he suggested to divide the property by laying pathway in the middle of the suit property in order to divide the same into two items. However, the suggestion given by the purchaser/15 th respondent herein also not acceptable one for the reason that if there is any inconvenience in enjoyment of property as per the final decree, the court can cause interference, but on seeing the Commissioner's report as well as division of property as ordered in the final decree proceedings, it does not require any interference for the reason that all the sharers are allotted equal shares with pathway right and convenient enjoyment is clearly evidenced from the report of the Commissioner as well as final decree passed by the court below. Therefore, the objections raised by the both appellants and the purchaser/15 th respondent herein is unsustainable one. Therefore, the objections raised by the both appellants and the purchaser/15 th respondent herein is unsustainable one. To that effect, the 15 th respondent herein had also preferred an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2017 and it was disposed of accordingly. 7. Furthermore, as on date, according to sisters, they have preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed for specific performance in S.A.No.314 of 2018, but it is between sisters and purchaser of the property. Therefore, without being influence of the findings rendered in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.244 of 2021, the purchaser/15 th respondent herein has to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the Second Appeal in S.A.No. 116 of 2026 is disposed of. No costs. 8. In the result, the findings rendered by the first appellate court in A.S.No.30 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode confirming the findings rendered by the trial court in the final decree proceeding in I.A.No. 1080 of 2004 in O.S.No.1292 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Erode is confirmed and the Second Appeal in S.A.No. 244 of 2021 is dismissed. The Commissioner's report as well as plan shall form part and parcel of the decree. No costs.