Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri G. Sathyavelu, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders passed by the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-39) in FDP No.131/2012. The first order dated 8.12.2014 allowed I.A. No.IV appointing a Commissioner to suggest the mode of division of property by metes and bounds. The second order dated 21.2.2015 rejected I.A. No.V filed by the petitioner seeking to recall the earlier order and set aside the appointment of the Commissioner. The background is a partition suit among siblings after the death of their father P. Govindan. A preliminary decree for partition was passed, and the matter was pending final decree proceedings. The petitioner contended that the appointment of a Commissioner was premature and that the court should first determine the shares of the parties. The respondents supported the trial court's orders. The High Court held that the appointment of a Commissioner is a procedural step to assist the court in effecting partition and is not a final determination of rights. The court noted that the trial court retains control over the Commissioner's report and parties can file objections. The High Court found no jurisdictional error or grave injustice warranting interference under Article 227. The writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Final Decree Proceedings - Appointment of Commissioner - Order 26 Rule 9 CPC - The trial court appointed a Commissioner to suggest mode of division of property by metes and bounds in final decree proceedings after a preliminary decree for partition was passed. The petitioner objected, but the court rejected the objections. Held that the appointment of a Commissioner is a procedural step to assist the court in effecting partition and is not a final determination of rights; the court retains control over the Commissioner's report and parties can file objections. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Preliminary Decree - Final Decree - Order 20 Rule 18 CPC - Section 54 CPC - After a preliminary decree for partition is passed, the court proceeds to pass a final decree by determining the precise share and dividing the property by metes and bounds. The appointment of a Commissioner is a common and necessary step in this process. Held that the trial court's order appointing a Commissioner is within its jurisdiction and does not warrant interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-10) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court's power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only if the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdiction, or committed a grave error of law. Held that the trial court's orders appointing a Commissioner and rejecting objections were procedural and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in appointing a Commissioner for division of property by metes and bounds in final decree proceedings and whether the High Court should interfere with such orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the trial court's orders appointing a Commissioner and rejecting the petitioner's objections. The court held that the appointment of a Commissioner is a procedural step within the trial court's jurisdiction and does not warrant interference under Article 227.
Law Points
- Final decree proceedings
- partition suit
- appointment of commissioner
- Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
- Order 20 Rule 18 CPC
- Section 54 CPC
- preliminary decree
- final decree
- metes and bounds division
- court commissioner
- objections to commissioner report
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- scope of interference
