THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5218 of 2010 (Dated : 04-03-2011) Between: Bheem Chander (died) per L.Rs. …Petitioners A n d Bheem Shaker and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5218 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22.6.2010 passed in I.A.No.308 of 2001 in O.S.No.19 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge allotted yellow portion in “A” schedule property shown in Commissioner’s second plan dated 23.3.2010 to the plaintiffs together, white portion shown in the plan to the defendants together and Yellow portion shown in Commissioner’s plan in respect of “B” Schedule to the plaintiffs together and portion with Zebra lines to the defendants together. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.19 of 1983. They filed the suit initially against Bheem Chander and Smt.Fatima Bai for partition and separate possession of their shares. Pending final orders, defendants 1 and 2 died and their legal representatives came on record as defendants 3 to 19. A preliminary decree came to be passed on 20th June 1986. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.308 of 2001 for passing of final decree. A Commissioner came to be appointed for division of the suit schedule property as per the preliminary decree. Pending final decree petition, Smt. Anasuya filed I.A.No.342 of 2009 seeking her impleadment as one of the respondents and her application came to be allowed on 20.4.2009. The Commissioner executed the warrant proposing division of the properties. Some of the respondents in the final decree petition filed objections to the Commissioner’s report. 3. The learned Senior Civil Judge, after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the report of the Commissioner, proceeded to allot Yellow portion in “A” schedule properties shown in the Commissioner’s plan dated 23.3.2010 to the plaintiffs together, white portion shown in the plan to the respondents together and Yellow portion shown in Commissioner’s plan in respect of “B” schedule to the plaintiffs and portion with Zebra lines to the defendants together, by order dated 22.6.2010. Hence, this revision by the respondents 3 to 19. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 23.11.2010. Respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance through a counsel. Though service has been effected on 5th respondent, she neither appeared in person nor through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent is not entitled to any share in the property and therefore, allotment of property to the 5th respondent is contrary to the preliminary decree. A further submission has been made that the Commissioner failed to take into consideration the quality and fertility of the land while making division of the property. On these two points, the order passed by the trial Court is challenged. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that respondent No.5 filed I.A.No.342 of 2001 seeking her impleadment in the final decree petition and the said application came to be allowed on 20.4.2009 and the order dated 20.4.2009 reached finality, as none of the parties to the proceedings choose to challenge the same. A further submission has been made that the petitioners herein have not produced any evidence before the trial Court to show that the partition of the suit schedule properties, as proposed by the Commissioner, is not in accordance with the fertility or potentiality of the lands. In a way, his contention is that the Commissioner had taken into consideration the good and bad qualities of the land and proposed allotment of shares to the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. 8. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The petitioners herein except making a plea that the allotment of land as proposed by the Commissioner is not in accordance with the fertility and utility of the land; no evidence has been adduced to substantiate their contention. The report of the Commissioner indicates that he has taken into consideration the good and bad qualities of the land and proposed division of the properties as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.19 of 1983. 9. With regard to entitlement of respondent No.5-Anasuya, she came on record as per orders in I.A.No.342 of 2009, dated 20.4.2009. The petitioners herein did choose to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.342 of 2009 and therefore, it is impermissible for them to contend that Anasuya is not entitled to claim her share in the property. The learned Senior Civil Judge considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to reject the objections raised by the petitioners as to the Commissioner’s report. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 CPC. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.04-03-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5218 of 2010 (Dated : 04-03-2011)