Under Karnataka CPC Section 54, the Court must effect partition based on the Revenue Officer’s report.

The petitioner, a judgment debtor, challenged an order dated 4 January 2024 in F.D.P. No. 1/2021, arising from the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 60/1991.

By that order, the trial court allowed Respondent No. 1’s application under Order XXVI Rule 13 read with Section 54 CPC and appointed the ADLR, Gokak, as Court Commissioner to effect the partition.

The petitioner argued that the ADLR was below the rank of Tahsildar and that the Commissioner could not effect the partition, which was for the court to do.

Whether the trial court could appoint the ADLR, Gokak, to assist with partition despite the petitioner’s objection that the officer was below the rank of Tahsildar.

Whether the Court Commissioner could effect the partition, or whether the court itself had to do so on the basis of the officer’s report.

Section 54 CPC, as amended in Karnataka, provides that where a decree concerns partition of an undivided estate assessed to government revenue, partition is to be made by the court in accordance with applicable law and, if necessary, on the report of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar or of another person appointed by the court as Commissioner.

The provision distinguishes between the officer or Commissioner who reports on the partition and the court, which is responsible for making it.

The application was made under Order XXVI Rule 13 read with Section 54 CPC.

The Court rejected the objection to the ADLR’s appointment because Section 54 permits the court to appoint “such other person” as Commissioner; the appointment was therefore sustainable notwithstanding the objection based on the Tahsildar-rank requirement applicable to a Revenue Officer.

However, the direction that the ADLR effect the partition was inconsistent with Section 54: the ADLR could submit a report, but the court had to effect the partition on that basis.

The appointment of the ADLR, Gokak, was upheld, but the direction requiring the ADLR to effect the partition was set aside.

The trial court was directed to obtain the ADLR’s report and then itself proceed to effect the partition in accordance with law; all contentions were kept open.