1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.257 OF 2002. 1. Shri Sadashiv Kashinath Pangam (since deceased) a. Kashinath alias Vikrant Sadashiv Pangam. b. Prashant Sadashiv Pangam, Both r/o House No.179, Jogadachi Hali,Sanquelim Goa. c. Mrs. Vidya alias Siddhi Ganpati Shirodkar, d. Ganpati R. Shet Shirodkar, Both r/o.Shri Kamaxi Temple Road, Bazar,Shiroda Goa. 2. Smt.Umabai Sadashiv Pangam, Both r/o.House No.179, Jogadachi Hali, Sanquelim-Goa. ... Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Shri Manohar Kashinath Pangam, 2. Smt.Manorama Manohar Pangam, both r/o.House No.181, Jogadachi Hali, Sanquelim-Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. R. Ga. Ramani, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 20 th JULY, 2009. 2 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Proceedings began with suit for partition. 3. Shares allotted are not disputed. Appellant who is defendant got 1/3rd share in suit property. 4. Finding recorded in para 48 of the Judgment reads as follows:- “I find that the suit property is very small and as it appears to be indivisible, the same is ordered to be valued by a Government valuer and the defendants who have two third share in the suit property are to be allowed to retain the suit property on payment of one third value to the plaintiffs, which process shall be initiated in the execution proceedings”. 5. Factual aspect of quoted position is not disputed. What is disputed is operative part contained in the decree which reads as follows:- “The suit property and the premises standing therein shall be valued by a Government valuer. The defendants shall there upon pay one third value of the suit property to the plaintiffs.” 6. Instead of Government valuation, appellant wants that the property be sold in auction. 7. It is not in dispute that 1/3rd portion is not partiable and cannot be usefully sold in auction., It has no worth for any prospective purchaser. 3 8. It is not shown that the recourse by trial Court to Government valuation is contrary to law. 9. In absence of decree being shown to be illegal no grounds emerge or surface which will entail setting aside of the decree under appeal. 10. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs. A. H. JOSHI, J. ah*