IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 RFA.No. 244 of 2005 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2005 IN IA.1519/00 IN IA.469/80 IN OS.26/1965 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM APPELLANT/12TH RESPONDENT IN I.A. 1519/2000 VALSALA AMMA, AMBAL NIVAS, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD TOWN. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR RESPONDENTS/PETITIOENRS 1 TO 17 & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11, 13 TO 53 IN I.A.. 1519/2000: 1. JACOB P. ELIAS, S/O. ELIAS, PARAPPATHKUZHIYIL KILLIMANGALAM VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. ANITA THOMAS, W/O. THOMAMS MATHEW, KAVUNGAL, SHORANUR VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. ANNAMMA MATHEW, W.O. MATHEW, KAVUNGAL, MUNDAMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. (PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, THOMAS MATHEW, S/O. K.M. MATHEW, KAVUNGAL KALLIPPADAM, SHORNUR.) 4. P.V. SUGATHAN, S/O. PONNARASSERI VASU, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, KOTATTIKARA DESOM, TALAPILLY TALUK. 5. P.K. VASU, S/O. PONNARASSERI PARONGODAN, KADAVLLUR VILLAGE, TALAPILLY TALUK. (DIED.) R.F.A. 244/2005 2 6. P.K. RAMAN MASTER, S/O. PEECHOLI KUNHU, PANNANCHERRI VILLAGE, KARIPPAKUNNU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. (PETITIONERS 4 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.C. ELIAS, S/O. PARAPPATH KUZHIUYIL CHACKO, KILLIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.) 7. SINDHU, W/O. KALLADA SURESH KUMAR, MANAVALASSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 8. ANITHA ROY, W/O. KAITHAKKAD ROY KURIAN, TRIPPUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 9. A.J. RAICHEL, W/O. ELIAS, PARAMBATHUKUZHIYIL KILLIMANGALAM VILLAGE, TALAPILLY TALUK. 10. V.K. JOSEPH, S/O. KURIACKOSE, PARAPPATHUKUZHIYIL, KARUMALAPPILLI VILLGE, TALAPILLI TALUK. 11 V.K. MONCY, S/O. KURIACKOSE, PARAPPATHUKUZHIYIL, KARUMALAPPILLI VILLAGE, TALAPILLI TALUK. (PETITIONERS 7 TO 11 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THOMAS MATHEW, S/O. K.M. MATHEW, KAVUNGAL KALLIPPADAM, SHORNUR.) 12. SANJEEVKUMAR, S/O. KALLADA RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAVALAZSSERI VILLAGE, THANISSERI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 13. SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O. KALLADA RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAVALASSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.4 14. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. KALLADA RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAVALASSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. (PETITIONERS 12 TO 14 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.C. ELIAS, S/O. PARAPPATH KUZHIYIL CHACKO, KILLIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.) 15. V.K. MONCY, S/O. KURIACKOSE, PARAPATHKUZHIYIL, KARUMALAPPILLI VILLAGE, TALAPILLI TALUK. R.F.A. 244/2005 3 16. V.K. JOSEPH, S/O. KURIACKOSE, PARAPATHKUZHIYIL, KARUMALAPPILLI VILLAGE, TALAPILLI TALUK. (PETITIONERS 15 & 16 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THOMAS MATHEW, S/O. K.M. MATHEW, KAVUNGAL KILLIPPADAM, SHORNUR.) 17. P.R. SUSHEELKUMAR, S/O. PEECHOLI RAMAN MASTER, PANNASSERI VILLAGE, KARIPPAKUNNU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 18. SATHYANATHANUNNI NAIR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK.4 19. GOURI NETHIAR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 20. RAJENDRANUNNI NAIR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 21. PRATAPANUNNI NAIR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 22. INDIRA, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 23. RAMANI, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 24. PRAKASHKUMAR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK.4 25. VIJAYAM NETHIAR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 26. SARALA NETHIAR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 27. RAVINDRANUNNI NAIR, KAVALAPPARA KOTTARAM, OTTAPALAM TOWN, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 28. RUGMINI ALIAS SUBHADRA AMMA, SURABHI, EDAMAKKARA, PUTHUKAVALAVATTOM, KOCHI. 29. VRINDAKUNHI AMMA, CENTRE FORT, 6A, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM TOWN. 30. RAJEEV, CENTRAL COURT, 6A. CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R.F.A. 244/2005 4 31. RAJENDRAN, CENTRAL COURUT, 6. CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 32. KHADIJA, AMBALAVAYALIL, NALLADAM, KOZHIKODE. 33. ABUBACKER, AMBALAVAYALIL, NALLADAM, KOZHIKODE. 34. THANKAMANI CHERIYAMMA, CHONATH VEEDU, NALLEPULLI, CHITTUR TALUK.4 35. A.V. VIJAYAKUMARI, 'ANSSA', PADIVATTOM ROAD, KOCHI - 24. 36. A.V. BALACHANDRAN, BANK LANE, OTTAPALAM TOWN. 37. CHITTRANJAN DAS, VADAVAVANUR, MARUTHUR HOUSE, CHITTUR TALUK. 38. DAMODARA UNNI, BANK LANE, OTTAPALAM TOWN. 39. SURENDRANATHAN, BANK LANE, OTTAPPALAM. 40. T. GOPIKA, BANK LANE, OTTAPALAM. 41. V. SUBHADRA MENON, 6TH AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI. 42. VIJAYAN, 6TH AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI. 43. MRS. GEETHA RAMACHANDRAN, 6TH AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI. 44. SARALA G. MENON, 6TH AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI. 45. MANORAMA VIJAYAN, 'SIVASAKTHI', KUNNATH MEDU, PALAKKAD. 46. JANAKI AMMA, 'SIVASAKTHI', KUNNATH MEDU, PALAKKAD. 47. RADHA BALAKRISHNAN, 'VRINDAVANAM', ATHANI, ALUVA TALUK. 48. RAMESH, 'VRINDAVANAM' ATHANI, ALUVA TALUK. 49. BHASKARAN, 'VRINDAVANAM', ATHANI, ALUVA TALUK. 50. RAKESH, 'VRINDAVANAM' ATHANI ALUVA TALUK. R.F.A. 244/2005 5 51. RAVUNNIKUTTY AARADHANA, PULASSERI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 52. UNNIAN HAJI, S/O. ALAVI HAJI, PARAYARUKUNDIL, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM. 53. HASAINAR, S/O. ALAVI HAJI, PARAYARUKUNDIL, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM. 54. P.V. SURESH, S/O.. VASU, PONNARASSERI, KAVUR VILLAGE, KORATTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR. 55. MOHANDAS, S/O.. PEECHOLI RAMAN MASTER, PANANCHERI VILLAGE, KARIPPAKUNNUR DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 56. ABUBACKER, S/O. ABDU, PUTHEN VEETTIL, AYYANTHOL VILLAGE, THRIKUMARAKUDAM DESOM. 57. KALLADA RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAVALASSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. (DIED) 58. KUNHII MOIDEEN HAJI, PALAKURISSI PUTHEN PEEDIYEKKAL, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 59. HAMSA, THADATHIL HOUSE, KULAPULLI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 60. ALI ALIAS MUTHU HAJI, PARAYARAKUNDIL HOUSEK, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 61. MAMMI HAJI, S/O. KUNNATHU MOIDEENKUTTY, VANIYAMKULAM AMSOM, PULACHITHARA DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 62. SUSHAMA JAYAN, ANANDALAYAM, TRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM TALUK. 63. BINDU PRAKASH, MANGALY NAGAR 5, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI. 64. P. SARASWATHII KUNHAMMA, JANAKI APARTMENT, R.S. PURAM, KOVAI. (DIED) 65. MOHANDAS, 176 E, 3RD CLOOR, JANAKI APARTMENTS, RAMALINGAM ROAD, COIMBATORE. R.F.A. 244/2005 6 66. MANOHARAN, 176 E, 3RD FLOOR, JANAJI APARTMENTS, RAMALINGAM ROAD, COIMBATORE. 67. MOOKKONATH VALSALA, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRANUNNI MANNADIAR, LEELALAYAM, CHERPULASSERI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 68. MOOKKONATH SARATH CHANDRAN, S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRANUNNI MANNADIAR, LEELALAYAM, CHERPULASSERI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 69. K. BHAVANI, W/O. P.K. VASU, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, KORATTIKARA DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 70. P.V. SATHYAN, S/O. P.K. VASU, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, KORATTIKARA DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. (R69 & R70 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 5TH RESPONDENT, AS PER ORDER DATED 4.11.2008, ON I.A. 3376/2007 IN R.F.A. 244/2005.) (IT IS RECORDED THAT R5 EXPIRED AND R4 AND 54 ARE HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - VIDE ORDER DATED 13.9.2007 ON MEMO DATED 1219/07, C.F. 39401/07.) (IT IS RECORDED THAT R57 EXPIRED AND R12, 13 AND 14 ARE HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - VIDE ORDER DATED 4/6/08 ON MEMO DATED 2815/08 C.F. 2391/08) (IT IS RECORDED THAT R64 EXPIRED AND RESPONDENTS 65 AND 66 ARE HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - VIDE ORDER DATED 4.6.2008 ON MEMO DATED 28.5.2008 C.F. 2391/2008). ADV. M/S. T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) , P.G.RAJAGOPALAN , M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR & ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN FOR R1TO5, 7 TO14, 16 & R17 ADV. SRI.P.G.RAJAGOPALAN FOR ADDL.R.69,70 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR ADDL.R.69,70 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/9/2008, THE COURT ON 4.11.2008, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.F.A. 244/2005 7 ORDER ON I.A. NOS. 1229/2005, 1362/2006, I.A. 3430/2007 & I.A. 4780/2007 IN R.F.A. 244/2005 // DISMISSED // 4.11.2008. SD/-, P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/-, T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. NO. 244 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE TH DAY OF 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is directed against the final decree in part passed by the Sub Court, Ottappalam, in I.A. 1519/2000 IN I.A. 469/1980 IN O.S. No. 26/65. The suit was one for partition of the properties belonging to Kavalappara Mooppilsthanam. A preliminary decree was passed in the above suit. I.A. 469/1980 is the final decree application. In the said matter, respondents 1 to 7 filed I.A. 1519/2000 for passing final decree in part with respect to a particular item in the above preliminary decree. By the impugned judgment, the court below passed a final decree with respect to one item. Aggrieved thereby, the 12th respondent in I.A. 1519/2000 has preferred this appeal. 2. As per the preliminary decree, a total extent of 136.03 acres, which are the plaint schedule items, were directed to be divided into 75 shares. As respect the petition schedule item is concerned, 74/75 sharers assigned their right in favour of strangers except the appellant. It is the assignees RFA 244/2005 :2: who moved for a decree in respect of the schedule items claiming separation of their shares and right. The appellant opposed the said application raising various contentions. A commissioner was appointed to inspect the property and he filed his plan and report. But the court was not satisfactory and dismissed I.A. 1519/2000. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.R.P. 2549/2002, which was disposed of on 12.2.2003 directing the court below to reconsider the final decree application after giving opportunity to all parties to substantiate their contentions. Thereafter, the court below again considered the matter and dismissed the application after setting aside the commissioner's report and plan. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in the said I.A. before this Court by filing C.R.P. 1786/2003 and that civil revision petition was disposed of by this Court by restoring I.A. 1519/2000 to file and directing the court below to pass fresh orders in the matter after getting a fresh commissioner's report. Thereafter, a new commissioner was appointed and he filed his plan and report. Even though the appellant again sought to set aside the commissioner's report and plan by filing I.A. 1649/2004, that application was dismissed by order dated 2.11.2004. Challenging the said order, the appellant herein filed W.P.(C) 33850/2004 which was disposed of directing RFA 244/2005 :3: the court below to allow the parties to adduce evidence with respect to the objection raised by them and to pass a final decree after considering such objections in detail. Pursuant to that order, I.A. 1519/2000 was considered afresh and the court below by its order dated 11.1.2005 passed a final decree in part with respect to that particular item. 3. The main contention advanced are that the court below ought to have accepted the contention of the appellant that the application for passing a final decree in part with respect to one item alone is not at all maintainable in law and the same will cause difficulties in allotment of properties to various sharers equitably, that the mode of division suggested by the Commissioner is highly inequitable, that the commissioner has not properly fixed the land value and in any view of the matter, the rates adopted by the commissioner are too excessive and highly disproportionate. Incidentally, it is pointed out that there is no serious objection regarding the land value adopted by the previous commissioner in his report. It is also contended that the valuation of the improvements is not proper, that the teak trees available in the property are highly undervalued and that same land value is given to the entire extent of the property allotted. It is further contended that even though an option was given to the appellant for RFA 244/2005 :4: allotment of a property in the plan prepared by the commissioner and she has opted the same, the court below did not accept the option statement and that the commissioner has earmarked and plotted a way through the western boundary of the plot allotted to the appellant without giving her the right to use the same. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Sri. Krishnan Unni and the learned Senior counsel Sri. Kelu Nambiar, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents. 5. The applicants before the court below are the assignees of the defendants in the original suit. They represented 651/2 /75 shares of the petition schedule properties. The receiver is in possession of a total extent of 136.09 acres comprised in Sy. Nos. 289/2, 3,4, 290/1, 2, 298/2,3,4, 26/1 and 1/1A. It is also not in dispute that the original sharers have assigned 74/77 shares out of the properties before the properties came to the possession of the receiver. According to the applicants, they have incurred more than Rs. 35,00,000/- and the only contesting co-owner is the 9th respondent. Since a final decree is not drawn they cannot enjoy their shares and they have to effect further improvements in the property. The entire property are spread over in different villages and districts and it is not RFA 244/2005 :5: possible to draw a final decree in the near future with respect to the entire property. Therefore, the petition schedule property having an extent of 136.09 acres which was released to them by the order of the Forest Tribunal is to be divided by passing an interim final decree. The commissioner has to be directed to file a report with respect to this item and a final decree is to be passed on the basis of the commissioner's report. The contesting respondent in her counter affidavit, contended that the petitioners had purchased the property with the full knowledge that the properties are involved in litigation for the past several years, that the respondent has filed objection to the commissioner's report and plan and that if one item alone is divided it will be prejudicial to the respondent. The commissioner's account, plan and report were marked as Exts.C1 to C3 and he was examined as CW.1. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the petitioners and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the respondents. Besides, the 12th respondent was examined as RW.1. 6. The main objection raised by the 12th respondent was against the commissioner's report and plan. He contended that neither the commissioner nor the surveyor had properly measured the property and there is no basis for assessing the value of the property set apart to her RFA 244/2005 :6: share at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent, that the property lying adjacent to the road will fetch only Rs. 3,000/- per cent, that out of the land available, the value of 76.19 acres were assessed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent and that the property allotted to her share is a narrow strip of land which is not fit for constructing any building facing to the road, that she intends to construct a 'Kallyanamandapam" in the property quite adjacent to the Anthimahakalankavu, that the ovelty to be paid by her of Rs. 12 lakhs is highly excessive, that trees worth crores of rupees standing in the property set apart to the share of the interim final decree petitioners are valued at a lesser amount, that in calculating the value, girth and length of those trees are not taken into account by the commissioner, that assistance of any expert has not been sought for in assessing the the value of such trees, and that the value shown in Ext.A1 is too low. But in cross examination, she has stated that the facts as stated in the affidavit filed by her are only hearsay in nature and she had not seen the entire 136 acres, that the share opted by her is on the southern side of Kulappulli - Pattambi road and on the western side of the Municipal road; but the commissioner has not marked her share at this particular point, that no purpose will be served if she is not alloted her share anywhere other than the spot opted by her, that the plot RFA 244/2005 :7: allotted to her is a hilly area except having an area of 10 cents, that no approach road is there on the rear side and that the width of her share is very short. Her main objection is against the length of the road frontage of the property allotted to her. She was not in a position to say the value of the property with road frontage which was allotted to the share of the final decree petitioners. She also does not know as to whether the value of the property is more. Nor had she any knowledge about the value of the trees. The commissioner has valued the property at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. It is contended that if the trees are valued properly, they will fetch more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and if so there will not be any occasion for any ovelty to be paid by her. 7. Thus, it could be seen that the the appellant who is the contesting respondent was aggrieved because the plot allotted to her and marked as "B" is of an elongated shape and therefore, it is very inconvenient for her purpose, wheres the plot opted by her is on the north-eastern side of the property with sufficient width, so that it could be used for some charitable purposes in connection with the Anthimahakalan temple belonging to Kavalappara Estate. The plot allotted to her is having an extent of 1 acre and 81 cents and she had also raised an objection regarding the valuation of RFA 244/2005 :8: the property as inequitable and exorbitant. She is further aggrieved that she is asked to pay an ovelty of Rs.12 and odd lakhs. 8. The contention as raised by the contesting respondent is not supported by any cogent evidence as found by the court below. Though the advocate commissioner was cross examined, nothing useful was brought out. 9. The properties allotted to the petitioners in the interlocutory application are shown as A schedule in Ext.C1 plan and the trees are shown as A1 schedule. The properties allotted to the contesting respondent (the appellant herein) is shown as B schedule and the trees allotted to her are shown as B1 schedule in Ext.C1. The area allotted to 56th respondent is shown as C schedule and the kuzhikoors therein are shown as C1 schedule. The area allotted to 58th respondent is shown as D schedule and the kkuzhikoors therein are shown as D1 schedule. the area allotted to 57th respondent is shown as E schedule and the kuzhikoors standing therein are shown as E1 schedule. The area allotted to 59th respondent is F schedule and the kuzhikoors therein are shown as F1 schedule. It is not disputed that except the contesting respondent, none of the sharers have no interest over the properties. It is not disputed that an option was given to the sharers to RFA 244/2005 :9: file their option statements regarding their choice in the matter of allotment of shares and they have filed their option statements indicating their choice including that of the appellant. The shares allotted to the petitioners are together in one block and the shares of others are separately allotted. The advocate commissioner has followed the belt system for assessing the value of the land for preparing the equalization table. He classified the land into three classes, namely (i) road frontage portion, (ii) its back portion and (iii) the rear portion, ie. the hilly area. For the road frontage portion having an area of 12 acres 57 cents, the commissioner has assessed the value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per cent, for the back portion having an extent of 49 acres and 19 cents, valuation is made at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per cent and the rear portion is valued at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per cent. A charge is also created over B schedule to F schedule for the amount shown in the equalisation table. 10. The court below found that the plot allotted by the commissioner as B schedule is exactly in the same area as opted by the appellant. The option statement was filed before the court on 23.6.2004. The road frontage of the share allotted to the appellant is about 30 metres. While considering this aspect of the matter, we have gone through the option statement filed by RFA 244/2005 :10: the appellant and the plan and we find that the plot allotted to her is not exactly the same plot as opted by her. The plot opted by her is more or less in a rectangular or square shape whereas what is allotted to her now is in an elongated shape, the rear portion being a hilly area. She is admittedly the only member left who has not assigned her share to third parties. Her intention is to construct a Kalyanamandapam attached to the tarwad temple. The desire of the surviving member to have a Kalyanamandapam for charitable purposes has therefore been accepted. But the court below went wrong in saying that what has been exactly opted by the appellant is allotted. According to the appellant, if the plot opted by her is not allotted, no purpose will be served. Of course, the respondents herein contended that the extent of the property to be allotted to the appellant is more than her due share as respect the item in question and if the plot opted by her is to be allotted that will be a larger extent which is more than her due share. But the learned Senior counsel Sri. Kelu Nambiar fairly conceded that his clients - the contesting respondents in this appeal are agreeable to allot the very same plot as opted by the appellant though the said plot will be a little more than what is due to her. 11. The court below found that what is opted by the appellant RFA 244/2005 :11: towards her share is on the eastern extremity of the total extent and that as per the plan, the plot is allotted accordingly. But it is found that the road frontage of the share allotted to the appellant is 30 metres and the proportionate road frontage is thus more than the proportionate width to which the appellant is entitled to. 12. The property allotted to the appellant is valued at Rs. 10,000/- per cent. The total extent for which this value has been awarded is 12 acres and 57 cents. According to the appellant, the property allotted could be valued only at Rs. 3,000/- per cent. But the court below referred to the cross examination of the appellant and observed that even according to the appellant, the value of the property having road frontage, allotted to the petitioners is assessed by the commissioner as Rs. 10,000/- per cent which is very low. So according to the court below, the rate adopted by the commissioner itself being low even according to the appellant, B schedule is similar in all respects with that of the land having road frontage allotted to the petitioners in the interim final decree application. Likewise, though the appellant contended that the valuation of the trees by the commissioner is not proper, the court below found that the appellant has not any specific case that any particular type of tree is valued at a lower rate and actually, RFA 244/2005 :12: the appellant has no direct knowledge about the trees and she has also not visited the site nor seen the trees standing in the property. In such circumstances, the court below rejected the objection regarding the value of the trees. The contention as raised by the appellant in the court below is reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant herein also. According to the appellant, there are about 289 teak wood trees in all and 46 rose wood trees which are valued at too low as is evident from Ext.A1 schedule. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, nothing is brought out in the cross examination of the commissioner to suggest that the trees as valued by the commissioner is too low. The appellant has also not adduced any independent evidence in this regard by showing the age or size of the trees. No materials are placed on record to show that the value of the teak wood and rose wood trees are more as per the Government rate. In the absence of any such materials produced, it will not be possible for this court to enter a finding that the trees are valued at a lower rate. Further, according to the appellant, the plot allotted to her is a narrow strip of land where there are only a few number of trees when compared to the rest of the property allotted to the other sharers. But having directed that the appellant is entitled to be allotted the same plot opted by her, which RFA 244/2005 :13: admittedly is much more than the extent actually entitled to by her towards her share and indisputably that plot has got more number of trees, the objection if any stands redressed. Further more, the ovelty amount of Rs.12,08,466/- ordered to be paid by the appellant is also agreed to be given up by the