Krishnan, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order passed under the Partition Act IV of 1893. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, one of the co-parceners of a family consisting of three coparceners, brought a partition suit for his share. When the decree was passed in that suit we find an order passed by the learned trial Judge by consent of parties that the property in suit, a house, should be sold under the Partition Act unless the Official Referee found it convenient to divide it by metes and bounds. This was a consent order. The Official Referee afterwards found that it was not convenient to divide the house into two halves and give one half share to the plaintiff and the other half to the defendants. It was therefore decided to sell the property under the Partition Act, but in the order made for this purpose, the learned Judge, Coutts Trotter, J., did not make it clear under what section of the Partition Act the sale was to take place. An application was subsequently made by the plaintiff under Section 3 of the Partition Act claiming to buy the property at a valuation fixed by the Court. This was disallowed by Coutts Trotter, J., but, on appeal to the Appella