In a suit for partition what is the procedure to be followed when the court finds that division of the property by metes and bounds cannot be conveniently or reasonably made ?

2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant, respondents 1 and 2 the plaintiffs and the other respondents defendants 2 to 7 in the suit from which this Original Petition arises. The suit is for partition of 2.3 areas of land with a house thereon. A preliminary decree was passed directing its partition. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/6 share each. Respondents 1 and 2 together are entitled to 2/6 shares and respondents 5 to 8 together are entitled to 1/6 share. The commissioner appointed by the court in the final decree proceedings reported that partition of the property by metes and bounds cannot be conveniently made as its extent is too small. The learned Munsiff ordered sale of the property under the provisions of the Partition Act of 1893. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application to permit him to purchase the share of the other co-owners. No orders have been passed on it. In this O.P he prays for issuance of certain directions to the court below.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. There is no controversy that division of the property involved in the suit cannot be reasonably or conveniently made because the extent of the land is very small and there is a building on it.

5. Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act of 1893 which are relevant are extracted below:

2. 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 circumstance, 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 of 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.

3. (1) If any case in which the court is requested under the last foregoing section to direct a sale, any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the share or shares of the party or parties asking for a sale, the Court shall order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner as it may think fit and offer to sell the same to such shareholder at the price so ascertained, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.

(2) If two or more shareholders severally apply for leave to buy as provided in sub-section (1), the court shall order a sale of the share or shares to the shareholder who offers to pay the highest price above the valuation made by the Court

(3) If no such shareholder is willing to buy such share or shares at the price so ascertained, the applicant or applicants shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application or applications.

6. In Manapurath Abdulla v. Assiya and Others (2014 (3) KHC 146 = 2014 (3) KLT 466) a learned single judge of this court considered a similar question. The extent of the land in that case was 8.63 cents. There was a residential building on it. The preliminary decree directed partition of the property and allotment of 1/7 share to the plaintiff, 2/7 shares to the 1st defendant and 1/7 share each to defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiff filed final decree application in 1996. In 1997 the 1st defendant filed an application to allow him to purchase the shares of the other co-owners. Later, the plaintiff also filed an application to allow him to purchase the shares of the other co-owners. The trial court ordered sale of the property among the co-sharers. This was challenged before the High Court. The learned single judge took notice of two facts: 1) the