with reference to the manner of allotment of land adjoining the road. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this road has come about recently and the division cannot be made taking into account the present situation and omitting the fact that the petitioner had actually been holding the property in his possession and he had spent large sums of money. While allowing for parties to retain the property in the respective possession is most desirable, it is not always inviolable, for situation, which could arise where it will be grossly inequitable to allow for continuance of such possession in excess of his entitlement. If it was only fair that when an undivided property is sought to be partitioned, equity prevails to ensure that the property is divided in equal moieties keeping in mind the valuation of the property. It does not require any extensive reasoning to see that the property, which is appurtenant to road is more valuable than properties which are interior to the same. Consequently, if the Commissioner had approved of division that allowed for equal extent adjoining the road for the parties, the Commissioner was exercising the jurisdiction, which was appropriate and I would find no reason for interfering the same.
