LAW FOR ALL

certainly there is no balance of equity because respondent No.1/plaintiff and others, who are having 19/40 share in the suit schedule property, would get rear side portion, which is not having any main road face. The part of property exclusively facing the main road if allotted to the appellants and some others is not a reasonable distribution of property. Such a course is not proper and equities require that all the parties shall get reasonable equal share in the suit schedule property in pursuance of the preliminary decree. The Advocate Commissioner divided the property vertically, duly putting in green colour a zebra crossing line with indication 19/40 and marking ‘A’, and in red colour a zebra crossing line with indication 21/40 and marking ‘B’, which was accepted by the trial Court. ‘A’ portion, which was marked in green colour, was allotted to respondent No.1 and others, who are having 19/40 share, whereas ‘B’ portion, which was marked in red colour, was allotted to the appellants and others, who are having 21/40 share in the suit schedule property. If this plan has to be accepted, it would clearly go to show that equity would be maintained in between both the parties. During the pendency of the litigation, this Court by order, dated 24.07.1995, in C.M.A.No.805 of 1995, appointed a Receiver i.e., appellant No.1, to manage the suit schedule property. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court, the Receiver was depositing the rents duly in the lower Court to the credit of the Original Suit. The parties as per entitlement are at liberty to withdraw the money in deposit in terms of the final decree proceedings i.e., respondent No.1/plaintiff and others who are sailing with him, having 19/40 share in the suit schedule property, are entitled for 19/40 share, whereas the appellants and others, having 21/40 share in the suit schedule property, are entitled for 21/40 share.