The court has no jurisdiction to direct a sale of property in a partition suit apart from the Partition Act, but it can allot the property to one co-sharer and compensate the others, and in appropriate cases, it can dismiss parties who do not want to keep the properties joint with compensation and allow others to retain the properties joint.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for partition. The properties sought to be partitioned are two valuable immovable properties and some movables. Of the two immovable properties, premises No. 78/1 Nimtala Ghat Street is the family dwelling house for the last 100 years. It is a four storeyed building on land measuring about 5 cottahs. The other immovable properties is premises No. 15, Pageyapatti Street, Calcutta, which is let out to tenants, yielding a very substantial rent. It is also a four storeyed building on land measuring about 3 cottas. There are 23 co-sharers having small fractional interests in the properties. Some of the co-sharers who are well off have acquired houses of their own and have left the family dwelling house. The remaining others are some how living in the family dwelling house. Plaintiff Is comparatively well off and has his own separate house, but is living in the family dwelling house,

( 2 ) THE shares of the parties in the two immovable properties are different. The reason of this difference Is that some of the co-sharers have purchased the share of other co-sharers in premises No. 15, Pageyapatti Street. Shares of the parties have been stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint and these are admitted shares.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF has claimed that the defendant No. 1 is liable to render account of some Joint family funds realised by him. Defendant No. 1 by his counsel offered to pay Rs. 300/- to the plaintiff in full settlement without admitting his liability to account. This offer has been accepted by the plaintiff and the claim for accounts has been given up by the plaintiff. None of the other parties claim any account against one another.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF has tendered evidence to prove the existence of some movable. The list of such movables has been tendered in evidence. All par-ties appearing, accept the position that beyond the movables set out in the list, there is no other movable jointly belonging to the parties. There is no further necessity of enquiring as to whether there are any other movables jointly belonging to the parties.

( 5 ) ALL the parties appearing agree that the premises No. 15, Pageyapatti Street cannot be conveniently partitioned and should be sold and the sale proceeds distributed amongst the parties according to their respective shares.

( 6 ) THE only dispute in this case Is whether the family dwelling house being premises No. 78/1, Nimtala Ghat Street should be directed to be sold or not. Mr. P. P. Ghosh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that having regard to the number of shares and the size of the dwelling house, it is clear that the dwelling house cannot be conveniently partitioned in metes and bounds, and there is no other alternative than ordering a sale of the house to the highest bidder amongst the parties; the parties, either singly or some of them jointly, may be allowed to bid. According to Mr. Ghosh, this will do equities to the parties and in his submission the only way to do equity between the parties. It is conceded that in the instant case the Court has no Jurisdiction to direct a sale under the Partition Act, inasmuch as there is no request by the share-holders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety in the properties to direct a sale. But it is urged that the Court has jurisdiction, apart from and independently of the provisions of the Partition Act, to order a sale amongst the parties and to direct that the property should be allotted to the party offering the highest bid. In support of this argument, Mr. Ghosh cited two recent authorities of this Court. In the case of Pannalal Dutt v. Hrishikesh Dutt, reported in 86 Cal LJ 144 (A), S. B. Sinha, J. laid down the above proposition, in the case of Narendra Nath Das v. Jnanendra Nath Das, reported in 90 Cal LJ 146 (B), Bachawat, J. laid down the same proposition and cited, with approval, amongst others, the above decision of S. B. Sinha, J. In the case of Nityagopal v. P