24) The appeal was pending before the trial court for a period of about 10 years. At no point of time, any of the parties placed materials on record to show that, the extent of property in CTS No.1589 was reduced. Therefore, the contentions of appellants that, due to widening of the road, the extent of said house property bearing no.1589 is reduced is not acceptable. The grievance of appellants that Commissioner has not measured said property is also not sustainable. Admittedly, the entire building was collapsed except two walls facing both side buildings are situated. Under such circumstances, it may be impossible for the Court Commissioner to actually measure it. But, records show its extent which is believable. The learned trial judge in detail considered this fact and came to a right conclusion. I concur with the said findings. Much is made out regarding valuation made by the Court Commissioner in respect of CTS NO.1589 and it is stated that to help the respondents, the Court Commissioner inflated the value of said property. The appellants have the grievance about the valuation made by the Court Commissioner –CW1. To show that, the said property was fetching lesser value, than the valuation made by the Court Commissioner, no materials are placed on record. The appellants have not produced the records to show the approximate market value of the property, as per the assessment of Registering Authority. They have also not produced any sales statistics to compare the valuation made by the Court Commissioner. According to Ex.C1, the Court Commissioner could not get any
