The expression "dwelling house" as used in Section 4 of the Partition Act ought to be given a liberal and comprehensive meaning, and it included a group of persons related in blood, who live in one house, or under one head or management.

SINHA, J. : - This is an appeal against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah, affirming an order of Ins learned Additional Subordinate judge, Howrah, made under Section 4 of the Partition Act IV of 1893. (hereinafter referred to as the Said Act). The facts in this case are briefly as follows : One Debendra Math Ghosh became the owner of house and premises No. 154, Panchanantola Road, at present known as premises No. 74, Deshpran Sashmal Road, Howrah. The house is two-storeyed, situated on land of the area of about 1 cottah 14 chittaks. There are two big rooms and one small room on the first floor and a corresponding number of rooms with one verandah on the ground floor. It is necessary here to set out the genealogical table of Debendra Nath Ghosh and his descendants.

2. It will appear from the genealogical table set out that Debendra had one son and seven daughters. The son Jnanendra, has a son named Amar Ghosh. Deberidra died in February, 1957. Both Jnanendra and Amar Shosh are alive. It has been found as a fact by the Courts below that Debendra, together with his large family was in actual possession of the entire premises uptil the year 1943-44. Since then, he gradually began to let out different portions of the said premises to tenants. The major portion of the premises was ultimately let out to tenants but at least one room was retained and occupied by him, and after his death by Jnanendra and others from time to time. It is in evidence that in 1949, Jnanendra acquired for Himself another house being premises No. 28, Raja Basanta Roy Road, Howrah. This was however his individual acquisition and his evidence given in the proceedings below is that he continued to occupy a room in the family dwelling house and never abandoned the intention of occupying the same. Debendra died on the 18th February, 1957. On or about the 11th May, 1957 Umashashi, Jnanendra, Kamala, Bimala and Reba made a gift of their 5/8th share in the said premises to Amar Ghosh. On 29th December, 1958 Parul Baia, by a sale deed sold her share in the said premises to the opposite party No. 1, Sri Satyendu Kundu. In the sale deed, tier share1, has been described as one-sixth share in premises No. 74, Deshpran Sasmal Road, Howrah, although in reality Parul Baia had a one-eighth share and could convey no mare. In 1960, Amar Ghosh and others instituted a partition suit. The parties in the suit are indicated in the genealogical table given above. The transferee, the opposite party No. 1 was also made a party. It was numbered as T. S. No. 84 of 1960 in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge, Howrah. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, claiming to purchase the share of Parul Baia transferred to the opposite party No. 1. The relevant part of Section 4 of the said Act runs as follows :

"4(1). 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 and proper directions in that behalf."

3. The application was in the first instance decided by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Howrah, who by his order dated 9th February, 1961 allowed the application only in respect of the petitioners 1 to 5. The application was dismissed with regard to the petitioners Nos. 6, 7 and 8. It was declared that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 were entitled to buy out the share of the opposite party No. 1. They were directed to apply for a valuation of the said share according to law within 30 days from the date of the order, in default of which their application would stand dismissed.

4. In the application, three points were raised. The