Hence,, this appeal by the plain tiffs.
488, of 1961 Lal Narain Sinha, F. C. Nariman, S. C. Aggarwala Aruneshwar Gupta For the Appellants B. N. Sinha, S. N. Prasad for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave, is directed against a judgment, dated March 20, 1967, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
They asked the respondent to partition and separate their share.
the same with their share in the suit premises.
20 3 1967 of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No.
The plaint also companytained a proposal from the plaintiffs to purchase the defendants share in the suit premises at a price which may be held reasonable and proper by the Court.
Therefore, on August 8, 1959, on the preceding facts, the appellants, instituted the suit No.
The first was herd in September 1963, the highest bid was offered by the plaintiffs.
As against this, it is urged on behalf of the respondent, that once it is held that the Act does number apply, the Court has numberpower to sell the property.
He pleaded that he was a permanent tenant in the suit premises and number a tenant from month to month that the plaintiffs had purchased only the right to receive their proportionate share of the monthly rent, to the extent of Rs.
According, the suit property was repeatedly auctioned between the parties.
It arises from these circumstances The defendant respondent purchased 3/16 share for Rs.
The defendant resisted the suit.
The last auction was held in June 1965, the highest bid being Rs.
The defendant was given the option to purchase the property at that price and deposit the sale money by July 19, 1965.
2,250/in the suit premises by a sale deed, dated March 25, 1957.
He fixed the valuation of the suit premises at Rs.11,250/ and director that the suit premises being incapable of partition shall be put to sale between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the same shall be sold to that party who offers to pay the highest price above the valuation made by me.
In the plaint, it was inter alia alleged that since the suit property, was of very small dimensions, measuring .013 acre only, and its partition by metes and bounds was number feasible.
53/ , inclusive of water tax, to the then proprietor.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil,Appeal No.
50,000/ offered by the plaintiffs.
64 of 1959 for partition of the suit property, in the Court of the Subordi nate Judge, First Court, Patna.
Against the decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal to the High Court.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dt.
An alternative proposal was made that the defendant was willing to buy the share and rights of the plaintiffs on a valuation that may be fixed by the Court.
Before this sale, the respondent was already in occupation of the premises as a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs.
The defendant failed to do so.
The respondent did number agree.
2388 of 1968.
9,000/ by a sale deed, dated April 27, 1957.
The plaintiffs appellants, who, at the material time, were members of a joint Hindu family governed by Mtakshara Law, purchased the remaining 13/16 share in the suit premises for Rs.
The Subordinate Judge by his judgment dated August 14, 1961, decreed the suit and in doing so, held that the defendant was number a permanent tenant but a tenant from month to month only, that the dimensions and the area of the suit premises being very small, it companyld number be companyveniently partitioned and therefore, it was necessary to have recourse to Section 3 2 of the Partition Act, 1893.
They already owned and possessed a parcel of land adjacent to the suit premises and they intended to open a market there after amalgamating.
39/ , but they were number entitled to claim partition.
