Courts must scrutinize partition reports for equitable valuation, even when no objections were filed.

The suit property had been allotted jointly to the branch of Gokul Chand in an earlier partition suit.

In the present partition suit, the trial court passed a preliminary decree declaring the parties’ respective shares.

In the final-decree proceedings, a Survey Knowing Commissioner divided the property by area but did not provide a valuation assessment.

The trial court accepted the report without objection and passed a final decree.

On appeal by defendant No. 1, the First Appellate Court set aside the final decree and directed a fresh partition, taking account of valuation, location, equity, and convenience.

The original plaintiff’s successors challenged that decision in this second appeal.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law by interfering with the final decree when no appeal had been filed against the preliminary decree.

2. Whether a Commissioner’s report and final decree based on an area-wise division could be challenged at the appellate stage for alleged inequitable allocation, despite the absence of objections before the trial court.

Section 100 CPC governs second appeals on substantial questions of law; Section 97 CPC concerns challenges to preliminary decrees.

Under Order 26 Rules 13 and 14 CPC, a Commissioner appointed to effect partition must allot shares in accordance with the preliminary decree, and the court must consider the report before confirming, varying, or setting it aside.

The court treated a Commissioner’s report as non-adjudicatory and not binding on the court, which must independently apply its mind to whether the proposed division is equitable.

The judgment also referred to Order 26 Rule 10(2)–(3) CPC concerning examination of a Commissioner and remittal or rejection of a report.

It relied on M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, (2022) 14 SCC 345, for the non-adjudicatory character of a Commissioner’s report, and on Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran, AIR 1986 SC 302, for the need for the court to consider valuation or division and apply its mind to the report.

It also referred to Abdul Rasheed v. Abdul Jabbar, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 14367, in support of entertaining objections to a Commissioner’s report at the appellate stage where equitable distribution is in question.

The High Court held that drawing a final decree is a judicial act, not merely an administrative confirmation of the Commissioner’s work.

Although the preliminary decree fixed the parties’ shares, their actual allotment had to be equitable and could not be assessed solely by area; relevant considerations included value, location, utility, accessibility, and convenience.

Because the Commissioner’s report contained no valuation assessment, the trial court’s acceptance of it without scrutiny did not relieve the court of its duty to ensure an equitable division.

The absence of formal objections below therefore did not bar the First Appellate Court from addressing the alleged inequity and ordering a fresh partition.

The High Court found the remand justified and did not determine the respondents’ separate objection to the maintainability of the appeal.

It directed the trial court to complete the final-decree proceedings in accordance with the directions in the first appeal, preferably within eight weeks of receiving the judgment, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.