IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT NO.168 OF 2011 Between : B.Thirupathi Reddy (died) and others. ...APPELLANTS A N D Sumanth Reddy and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT NO.168 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal suit under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the order, dated 06.10.2005 in I.A. No.484 of 2005 in O.S. No.44 of 1985 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, whereunder and whereby petition filed to pass final decree was allowed dividing the schedule properties by metes and bounds as per the commissioner’s report and the property was allotted to the sharers in pursuance of the preliminary decree. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Original Suit No.44 of 1985 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule properties. Basing on the evidence available on record, the trial court passed a preliminary decree on 23.08.1991 1) declaring and determining the rights of parties and shares of all eligible claimants. The decree with regard to the declaration of the shares of the eligible claimants in respect of the property has become final. In pursuance of the preliminary decree, the present application has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs to pass a final decree. 2) Final decree carries out and effects partition by metes and bounds of the property. A Commissioner was appointed therein for division of the schedule properties by metes and bounds, and the Commissioner filed his report into the court duly dividing the property in terms of preliminary decree. The trial Court accepted the Commissioner’s report and divided the property by metes and bounds, and totally an extent of Ac.31.16 guntas has been divided by metes and bounds. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that land in survey nos. 16/A and 17/A, which was allotted to the appellant No.2/Defendant No.2 is acquired for the purpose of laying road to an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas and that the land in survey No.20/A, which was allotted to him is not cultivable land and therefore the division of the schedule properties by metes and bounds is not in accordance with the preliminary decree. 5. When the Commissioner’s report has been filed duly dividing the schedule property by metes and bounds, the appellant No.2/defendant No.2 filed objections to the commissioner’s report. The said objections have been considered in a right perspective and accepted by the trial court. Therefore, the property has been divided by metes and bounds and by virtue of the final decree, he was allotted 1/3rd share of the suit schedule property. As per the preliminary decree, the appellant No.2 is having a right to an extent of 1/3rd share and to that extent, property was divided by metes and bounds in the final decree proceedings in pursuance of the Commissioner’s report. Therefore, the division of the properties is not shown to be not in accordance with the terms of preliminary decree. Such is the case, when the final decree proceedings are completely in consonance with the preliminary decree, the question of admitting the appeal does not arise. The trial court rightly considered all the aspects in right perspective and passed the impugned final decree. None of the findings is shown to be incorrect or perverse. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 08, 2011. YVL