This is an appeal directed against the final decree passed in O.S. No. 280 of 2000.
2. In pursuance to the preliminary decree passed, the plaintiff applied for passing of final decree by filing I.A.No. 3185/2009. A Commissioner was deputed and he has submitted Exts. C1, C1(a) and C1(b) which are the report, mahazar and the survey plan.
3. Some of the defendants filed objection to the Commissioners report. The main grievance was regarding the road frontage which was available to each of the parties. To be more precise, the grievance was that the plaintiff had more road frontage than the defendants who objected to the Commissioners report.
4. Both the courts below for cogent and convincing reasons held that there was justifiable reason why the plaintiff had a larger road frontage. The plot allotted to him was found to be in irregular shape whereas the plots alloted to other sharers who raised grievance against the allotment were rectangular in shape. Finding that no justifiable grounds have been made out by any of the contesting defendants to the acceptance of the Commissioners report and plan, objection was repelled and an order was passed accepting report and plan.
5. In this appeal the learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the contentions raised before the courts below. According to the learned counsel, the share and extent due to the plaintiff as well as to the objecting defendants is the same and there is no justifiable reason as to why the same length of road frontage should not be given to the contesting defendants also. Since a lesser extent of road frontage is given, it was contended that the allotment is inequitable and unjustifiable.
6. Prima facie, it may appear to be so. But on a close consideration of materials and looking at the criterion on the basis of which the allotments were made would reveal that there is nothing wrong in the allotment suggested by the Commissioner which has been accepted by the courts below. Both the courts below have found that the plots alloted to the contesting defendants are rectangular in shape whereas plot alloted to plaintiff is irregular. It is significant to notice that the eastern boundary of all the plots alloted to various defendants have road frontage in its entirety. The only grievance is that the length of the road frontage of the defendant is lesser than that of the plaintiff. The courts below have given cogent and convincing reason for adopting the Commissioners report and plan. There is no reason to take a different view as there is nothing to show that either the allotment is inequitable and unjustifiable or the plaintiff has been shown undue favour.
This appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds