Judgment

DUTT, J. : - The special leave has already been granted. As elaborate arguments were made at the hearing of the special leave petition, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

2. The appeal has been preferred by the two plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 and is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court under S. 3(l), Partition Act, 1893.

3. The preliminary decree was passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court in terms of a compromise entered into between the parties. By the compromise decree the share of each party was declared as 1/6th in the suit property comprising 200 sq. yds. of land and a two-storeyed building standing thereon. Appellants 1 and 4, who were the plaintiffs, applied for passing a final decree under O. XX, R. 18, Civil P.C. A Commissioner for Partition was appointed by the High Court. According to the report of the Commissioner, the building was incapable of being divided by metes and bounds. The finding of the Commissioner was accepted by all the parties in the suit. The plaintiff-appellants filed an application for sale of the property by public auction under S. 2, Partition Act. Respondent 2, Smt. Savitri Devi Behl, who was defenda