A NO. 6592 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-02-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU A NO. 6592 of 2024 in C.S.No.374 of 2021 L.Vijayalakshmi W/o J.A.Lawrence, D/o K.Bakasubramanian B-2f, Vgn, Imperia, Phase-1, 3rd Main Road, Vgn Ml Nagar, Perumal Agaram, Chennai - 77 Applicant(s) Vs K.Balasubramaniam S/o Late A.K.Kumaran No.23, Block No.L-64, First Floor, Aiswarya Colony, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 20. and 3 Others Respondent(s) For Applicant(s): M/s.R.Thiagarajan Vasudha Thiagarajan For Respondent(s): ORDER The present application had been filed to bring the suit schedule properties to sale for a value to be fixed by this Court. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3.The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that subsequent to the preliminary decree passed by this Court on 18.08.2022, the learned Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court had inspected the property and had also filed a Report dated 29.05.2023 indicating that the properties being flats and plots, it will be beneficial to the parties for enjoying the properties as a whole and not in smaller units as it is also difficult to determine the 1/5th share of the plaintiff's property by giving a separate entrance and pathway. She would submit that in view of the categorical Report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, she would pray this Court to bring the suit schedule properties to sale for the value to be fixed by this Court. The applicant had also filed a revised valuation report of an independent Engineer, who is also the approved valuer of the properties. 4.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials available on record before this Court. 5.This Court on 18.08.2022 had passed a preliminary decree on the terms indicated therein and by holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/5th of share in each of the suit schedule properties and had appointed an Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the suit schedule properties and effect division of the same by metes and bounds and allot 1/5th share of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis properties to the plaintiff. It had also further held that had the division of properties by metes and bounds could not be made, the learned Advocate Commissioner is permitted to approach this Court to effect sale of the properties and allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff or permit the plaintiff to acquire as to the valuation fixed by this Court. 6.Pursuant to the warrant issued, the learned Advocate Commissioner had filed a detailed Report after inspection of the properties and had noted that the properties would not be divisible for the reasons indicated therein and had also specifically stated that it would be for the parties to enjoy the properties as a whole, as the properties were flats and plots. Further, the learned Advocate Commissioner had requested this Court to treat the warrant as executed and had returned the warrant. It is also to be noted that the defendants has been set ex-parte. 7.Since, a preliminary decree had been passed and a Report had been filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner, pursuant to the warrant issued by this Court indicating that the properties are not divisible, this Court is of the view that the prayer sought for in this application would have to be ordered as prayed for. 8.The learned Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in its preliminary decree by order dated 18.08.2023 was permitted to approach this Court to effect sale of the property if it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is indivisible. This Court is of the view that a new Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to carry out the sale of the suit schedule properties. In such view of the matter, this Court appoints Mr.P.Raja Kumar, Advocate Ms.No.25/1993 having office at 13-A, Krishnasamy Street, Pazhavanthangal, Chennai – 600 114 (Cell:9789819505) E.Mail Id:rajkumarpalanisami@gmail.com as Advocate Commissioner to effect the sale of the properties. Considering the fact that the suit schedule properties are different, this Court fixes the initial remuneration of the learned Advocate Commissioner at Rs.25,000/- for each of the schedule mentioned properties. 9.The plaintiff is directed to bear the cost of advertisement and other incidental expenses of the learned Advocate Commissioner. The learned Advocate Commissioner shall also take into consideration the valuation Report of Mr.Er.P.Anbarasan which had been filed along with the Memo dated 03.02.2025 filed by the applicant/ plaintiff in arriving at the up-set price for each of the properties. Since, the plaintiff had been permitted to also acquire the properties on the valuation fixed by this Court, this Court permits the applicant/ plaintiff also to participate in the auction to bid for the properties appended to the schedule to the suit. 10.With the aforesaid directions, the application is ordered as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 03-02-2025 Gba https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis