14.However, considering the materials placed on record, even though the defendants are found to have filed objections to the commissioner's report and plans by contending that the plaint schedule properties shown in the three schedules are not of the same quality, however, with reference to the same, it is seen that no material has been placed by the defendants pointing to the same for the consideration of the Courts below. Equally though the defendants would put forth the objections that the properties suggested to be allotted to the plaintiff by the advocate commissioner and thereby, proceeded to be allotted to the plaintiff by the Courts below are the prime properties, however, when with reference to the same also, to evidence that the abovesaid properties alone are the prime properties and the remaining plaint schedule properties are not the valuable properties and they are of the inferior quality and lesser value, absolutely, there is no material forthcoming on the part of the defendants, even prima facie. The defendants have failed to substantiate the abovesaid objections put forth by them by way of convincing and acceptable materials. In such view of the matter, merely because some objections had been filed by the defendants to the commissioner's report one way or the other, when in the absence of any material to substantiate the same on the part of the defendants either by way of oral evidence or by way of documentary evidence, the Courts below are found to be justified in not countenancing the objections put forth by the defendants to the commissioner's report and plans. Mere filing of objections by the defendants to the commissioner's report and plans would not be sufficient. Unless the defendants also place reliable and
