JANARTHANAM J.

This appeal arises out of an order dated February 10, 1982, by a learned single judge in Application No. 1718 of 1981 in C. S. No. 83 of 1965 on the file of this court C. S. No. 83 of 1965 was one in a partition action of the estate of late Chidambaram Chettiar. Out of seven heirs, one of the heirs, namely, Meenakshi Achi, figuring as plaintiff, brought the said partition action, impleading the rest of the heirs as defendants Nos. 1 to 6. By consent, a preliminary decree had been passed declaring the entitlement of one-seventh share in the said estate to each of them. The estate was burdened with the obligations of meeting the pressing demands of huge arrears of income-tax, wealth-tax, urban land tax, property tax and what not. In order to relieve the pressure on the estate, this court, on April 26, 1977, directed an Advocate-Commissioner to sell two items of immovable properties belonging to the estate, namely, house, ground and premises bearing Nos. 5, 5-A and 5-B, Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli, and a vacant site, known as Kallukuzhi, Tiruchirapalli.

Pursuant to the said orders, the Commissioner invited tenders for the purchase of the said items of the properties. He filed a report in the court stating that he received two tenders, one from Muthulakshmi Achi and the other from one Mohammed Ibrahim. Muthulakshmi Achi offered Rs. 3, 85, 000 for the house and 60 paise per square foot for the vacant site. The said Mohammed Ibrahim offered Rs. 3, 90, 000 for the house alone and he was not willing to purchase the vacant site on account of certain technical difficulties arising out of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short "the Act").

Accepting the offer of the said Muthulakshmi Achi on June 28, 1978, the Advocate-Commissioner was directed to sell the house and the vacant site to her, granting her two months' time to deposit the sale price. The Commissioner also took steps to get clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities ; but the efforts so taken ended in dismal failureMeanwhile, one of the heirs, PL. CT. SP. Subramanian; Chettiar (first defendant) was adjudicated insolvent on August 12, 1977 in I. P. No. 75 of 1975 and all his assets and other effects vested in the official assignee. On November 14, 1980, the said order of adjudication was annulled and all his assets and effects were revested in him. He filed Application No. 1718 of 1981 to modify the order passed by this court on June 28, 1978, and direct the Commissioner to divide the house and the vacant site by metes and bounds into seven specific parts and allot one such part to him. He also took out Application No. 1719 of 1981 for stay of issuance of the sale certificate in favour of Muthulakshmi Achi, her nominee or nominees, as per the memo of the Commissioner dated April 7, 1981, pending disposal of the main application.

The said Muthulakshmi Achi who is a third party filed Application No. 1936 of 1981 to implead her as a party in Application No. 1718 of 1981. She was ordered to be impleaded as an additional respondent in the said application.

Respective learned counsel appearing for Subramanian Chettiar (first defendant/applicant) and Meenakshi Achi (plaintiff/first respondent) raised various grounds before the learned single judge, in support of the relief prayed for in Application No. 1718 of 1981 and they are as follows:

(1) Muthulakshmi Achi did not at all deposit the sale consideration as directed in the order dated June 28, 1978, and, consequently, she is not entitled to enforce the same

(2) It is the duty of the court to see that, in such matters, the best price is obtained for the estate and since the applicant/first defendant is now prepared to pay Rs. 10 lakhs for the house alone, his offer should be accepted, in preference to the price of Rs. 3, 85, 000 originally offered by Muthulakshmi Achi, which was grossly inadequate and detrimental to the estate(3) Since Muthulakshmi Achi is prepared only to