V. NEELADRI RAO, J.

( 1 ) D-2 and D-3 in O. S. No. 1981 of 1982 on the file of the VIII Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are the revision petitioners, R. 1 herein filed the suit for partition of the house hearing No. 17. 2. 582 admeasuring 550 sq. yards situated at Kurmaguda, Saidabad. Preliminary decree was passed for partition and R. 1 plaintiff is entitled to 1/13th and D-2 and D-3 are entitled to 2/13th each and six others are entitled to 1/13th each and the l. Rs. of the deceased defendant are entitled to 2/13th. It is a case of division of the property amongst brothers and sisters and each of the 3 brothers is given 2/13th share while each of the sisters is given 1/13th share.

( 2 ) R. 1 (Plaintiff) filed I. A. No. 481 of 1987 for passing the final decree after partition of the plaint schedule house.

( 3 ) ADVOCATE Commissioner submitted that the suit house cannot be conveniently and reasonably divided in accordance with the preliminary decree. Then the revision petitioners who are residing in the plaint schedule house, filed I. A. No. 224 of 1991 praying that the plaint schedule house may be allotted to them and they are prepared to pay the compensation to the other sharers by way of owely. The said petition was dismissed and the court Ordered auction of the plaint schedule house. It was divided into two portions and in the auction, the impleadihg petitioner in C. M. P. No. 11041 of 1991 purchased Portion No. 1 for Rs. 1,50,000/- while the impleading petitioner in C. M. P. No. 11042 of 1991 purchased the 2nd portion for Rs. 1,30,000/- and they deposited the sale consideration in the court. But confirmation of the sales was stayed in pursuance of the orders of this Court in C. M. P. No. 5251 of 1991 pending disposal of this revision petition.

( 4 ) THE total extent is referred to as 550 sq. yards in the plaint schedule. But it is not evident as to whether it is inclusive or exclusive of the plainth area of the suit house bearing No. 17. 2. 582. An extent of 80 sq. yards out of 550 sq. yards was gifted to D-7 and hence, the same was excluded even when the preliminary decree was passed. The revision petitioners sold an extent of 81 sq. yards to the claimant in I. A. No. 1207 of 1989 and as per order dt. 2-4-1990, the Court directed that the said extent of 81 sq. yards should be allotted to the share of the revision petitioners. Thus the remaining extent is only 389 sq. yards.

( 5 ) SECTION 2, Partition Act, 1895 (for short "the Act") provides that in any suit for partition by reason of the nature of the property which had to be partitioned or of the number of the shareholders therein or of any other special circumstances a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made and the sale of that property and the Distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the shareholders, the Court may on the request of any of such shareholders interested individually or collectively to the one moiety or upwards, direct sale of the property and distribution of the proceedings. In order to consider the scope of Sec. 2 of the act, it is convenient to read it, and it is as under:"power of Court to order sale instead of division in partition suits. Whenever in any suit for partition in which, if instituted prior to the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been made, it appears to the court that, by reason of the nature of the property to which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders therein or of any other special circumstances, a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the shareholders, the Court may if it thinks fit, on the request of any such shareholders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds. "it is apparent that a shareholder hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document