an adjustment in respect of the owelty by reducing the extent of immovable property allotted to him. According to the learned counsel, in so far as the said course of action is not prohibited, it should have been permitted by the final decree court. He also contended that the building in the suit property in O.S.No.296 of 2009 has not been valued by the Advocate Commissioner correctly. Coming to the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order does not indicate that such a contention was raised by the appellant before the lower appellate court. No question of law is also seen framed in the second appeal by the appellant in relation to the said contention. Coming to the first contention raised in relation to the owelty payable by the appellant, it is seen that it is beneficial for the appellant to pay owelty in lieu of property, the valuation of which was made long ago. It is seen that the property is valued only at Rs.24,946/- per cent. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, he will have to forgo approximately three cents of property in lieu of the owelty payable by him. It is therefore clear that there is no reason for the appellant to feel
