The provisions of Section 4 of the Partition Act are to be interpreted liberally to achieve the object of preserving the integrity of the family dwelling house and to enable the members of the family to keep it for themselves as far as possible.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against a common judgment disposing of Misc. Case No. 41 of 1962 and Misc. Case No. 10 of 1963 of the 6th Court of learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore.

( 2 ) THE two Misc. Cases arose out of two independent applications for pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act arising out of Title Suit No. 34 of 1959 of the said Court.

( 3 ) SM. Panchanani Dasi defendant No. 4 in the said suit was the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 41 of 1962. The other Misc. Case No. 10 of 1963 was filed by Kalipada Das, defendant No. 3,

( 4 ) THE case of the two petitioners are practically identical. Their case is that the disputed properties namely premises No. 27/1a, Srish Chowdhury Lane, and 6a, Tarak Bose Lane form part of the same house and was the joint family dwelling house of Binodini Dasi and Tinkari Dasi. Binodini made a gift of her 8 annas shares in favour of Manmoth (the original plaintiff) who possessed the same jointly with his sisters, - Shyamasundari, Krishnabhamini, Durgabala and Panchanani. Shyamasundari, Krishnabhamini and Durgabala gifted away their 6 annas shares to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by a deed of gift dated 18-7-1957. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sold away their shares to the sons of defendant No. 4, while the plaintiff Manmoth Nath Das sold his 9 annas 6 paise share of the joint family dwelling house to Santosh Kumar Mitra on 27-4-62. The petitioner in Misc. Case No, 41 Panchanani Dasi and the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1963 Kalipada Das prayed for purchasing the share transferred by the plaintiff to Santosh Kumar Mitra who was a stranger to the family, on payment of the consideration under Section 4 of the Partition Act.

( 5 ) SANTOSH Kumar Mitra opposed both the cases. His contention in the Court below was that the disputed property was not the joint family dwelling house of Tinkari and Binodini or for the matter of that their successors, that they never lived in the suit premises which were all through Jet out to tenants and that the provisions of Section 4 of the Partition Act were not applicable to the case.

( 6 ) BOTH parties adduced evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge upon a consideration of the evidence found that P. W. 1 Promotha Nath Das and defendant No. 3 Kalipada Das are living in the disputed house, that the disputed house is a dwelling house belonging to the undivided family and that the fact that the house was let out for more than 20 years was not a matter of much moment. On such findings the learned Subordinate Judge allowed Misc. Case No. 10 of 1963 arising out of the application of Kalipada Das. But with regard to the other Misc. case at the instance of Panchanani Dasi the learned Subordinate Judge found that she has been living at Entally since her marriage and ceased to be a member of the family. Tn that view of the matter the other Misc. case namely Misc. Case No. 41 of 1962 was dismissed on contest.

( 7 ) SANTOSH Kumar Mitra and Panchanani Dasi preferred the present appeals, one against the order allowing the prayer of petitioner Kalipada Das and the other dismissing the prayer of Panchanani Dasi.

( 8 ) MR. Nirendra Krishan Milra appearing in support of the appellant Santosh Kumar Mitra urged two points in support of the appeal namely : (1) that Section 4 of the Partition Act on its own terms is not applicable to the case and (2) that at any rate the property in dispute is not a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family.

( 9 ) SECTION 4 of the Partition Act provides that where a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the Court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder and may give all necessary a