house according to his share, it became necessary to have valuation of the property. Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad was appointed as the Court Commissioner for making valuation of the property. The value of the house No. 135 was assessed at Rs.2,94,984/-, while the value of the house No.136 was found to be Rs.1,02,945/-. The total value of both these properties was Rs.3,97,929/-. The Executing Court noted that the present applicant and respondent No.2 were living in the House No.135. As per the share of respondent No.1 - decree holder, his share could be worth Rs.88,539.28. The value of the house No.136, being Rs. 1,02,945/-, was more than the share of decree holder. The difference was Rs. 13,310.75 ps. The house could not be divided. The Executing Court noted that the judgment debtor i.e. the present applicant had offered to pay only Rs.66,000/to the decree holder so that he could retain the house No.136 also. However, this was much less than what the decree holder was entitled to as per the valuation made by the Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad. The decree holder i.e. respondent No.1 offered to take the house No.136 as per the valuation made by the Deputy Engineer, and pay the difference of Rs.14,405.72. In view of the fact that bigger house bearing No.135 was already in possession of the present applicant and respondent No.2 and also that the respondent No.1 was willing to pay the value of the house No.136 as per valuation made by the Deputy Engineer, the Executing Court accepted the report of the Court Commissioner and directed that house No.
