1. What does the expression “reservation” in a partition suit mean ? Is it synonymous with “equities” to be worked out at the time of allotment of shares ? These are the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

3. Dispute between the parties lie in a narrow compass. The suit is one for partition of immovable property and a house situated thereon. Appellants are the defendants in the suit. Respondent (plaintiff) is the brother of the appellants. The suit property originally belonged to their father. In a partition effected between the sharers in 1992, the suit property was kept in common. Later, four sisters of the respondent released their rights in favour of him as per a registered document. The appellants were not willing to part with their shares. They were also not prepared to partition the property. In that situation, the suit was filed by the respondent.

4. In the written statement, the appellants admitted that the plaint schedule property is partible. There is no dispute regarding the shares also. The respondent is entitled to get 6/9 shares. Factum of release of shares by other co-owners is also undisputed. The respondent claimed that he, being the major share holder, is entitled to get the house situated in the property, reserved in his name; whereas the appellants would contend that the plaint schedule property is liable to be sold in public auction as partition by metes and bounds is impracticable and the sale proceeds has to be divided among the sharers.

5. The trial court rightly decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal. The objectionable part of the judgments and decrees, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is the finding that the respondent is entitled for reservation of the house in his favour as far as possible. The legal obscurity lies in the use of expression “reservation” in the impugned judgment indicating that the house in the property has been excluded from the partible assets.

6. The concept of reservation of property involved in a suit for partition in favour of a sharer (or a co-owner, as the case may be) is to be understood clearly. It amounts to exclusion of certain property from the partible assets. In a partition suit, at the preliminary decree stage, the court is called up to adjudicate the partibility of assets involved in the suit, the share of each of the parties, whether any of the parties is entitled to claim exclusion of any property from division etc. Normally, in order to claim exclusion of an item from partition, the sharer/co-owner claiming such a right will have to establish his exclusive right over the property. The law presumes that each co-owner is the absolute owner in respect of each part and parcel of the land. Unless a co-owner gets consent from other co-owners, he cannot effect improvements in the property so as to claim reservation of the asset to him at the time of division. If he effects improvements in a co-ownership property, the law presumes that it is for the benefit of all and therefore, he cannot claim reservation of the same to the exclusion of others. So much so, the burden is purely on the person making a claim for reservation that he effected improvements in the co-ownership property with the consent of others, either expressly or impliedly, agreeing to reserve the same to him at the time of division. The court adjudicating the rights of the parties will have to consider at the preliminary decree stage whether a particular property, over which one of the parties claim reservation, is available for partition or not. If a party claiming reservation of an item of property included in the suit proves that the property is not available for partition, the court at the stage of preliminary decree will have to consider the plea and if it is found allowable, the item should be discounted from the list of partible property. The adjudication regarding reservation of an it