A married daughter residing with her husband elsewhere can be considered a member of the undivided family for the purpose of Section 4 of the Partition Act if she is related by blood to the family and has not abandoned her intention to reside in the dwelling house.

MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE sole point involved in this appeal is whether defendant 2 is entitled to any relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Facts relevant for the appreciation of this point need only be mentioned. One Kelu had four sons--Kashi, Ananda, Nilei and Bholi. Paluni (defendant 2) is the daughter of bholi. Chanda (defendant 1) is the widow of Dinei, son of Nilei. Keluni (defendant 3) is the widow of Kurup, son of Ananda. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of kashi. Plaintiff purchased Ka schedule property from defendant No. 1 by a registered sale-deed, dated 14-11-1953 (Ex. 1/a) Plots Nos. 85 and 543, in respect of which relief under Section 4 of the Act is claimed, constitute portions of ka schedule land. The concurrent findings of both the Courts are that the plaintiff is a stranger purchaser and that defendant No. 2 is a resident of village jagannathpur where she resides with her husband, but at times comes with her husband to village Bahuliapada to look after the properties which she has got from her parents and her husband is not a Gharjamai.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the contention, Section 4 (1) of the Act may be quoted-"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 share-holder 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 share-holder and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf. "

( 3 ) IT is now settled by authorities that the family must be undivided qua the dwelling house. The concurrent finding is that the dwelling house is undivided and that the plaintiff is a stranger and not a member of the family. As the plaintiff-transferee has filed the suit for partition and defendant No. 2 is a share-holder undertaking to buy the share of the plaintiff the only question for determination is whether defendant No. 2 is a member of the family.

( 4 ) MR. Swain contends that defendant 2 a married daughter residing with her husband elsewhere, cannot be a member of the family of defendant No. 1. The term 'family' is not defined in the Act. It has been consistently held that it would neither be possible nor desirable to frame a comprehensive formula or an exhaustive definition to indicate the moaning of the term 'family'. In Khirode chandra v. Saroda Prosad, 7 Ind Cas 436 (Cal ). Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee's classical exposition of the meaning of the term 'family' cannot be improved upon. After a thorough discussion, their Lordships' conclusion was couched in the following language: 'the word "family", as used in the Partition Act ought to be given a liberal and comprehensive weaning, and it does include a group of persons related in blood, who live in one house or under one head or management. There is nothing in the Partition Act to support the suggestion that the term "family" was intended to be used in a very narrow and restricted sense, namely, a body of persons who trace their descent from a common ancestor'. The facts of that case were that the owners of the property, who were fifth in descent from the founder, were daughters. All of them were married. Some of them lived with their husbands in the ancestral dwelling house, while others lived occasionally in the same place, and other times, in the house of their respective husbands. Two of the daughters transferred their interest to their husbands who were residing in the family dwelling house of their father-in-law. On these facts, their Lordships held that not only the daughters constituted an undivided family but their husbands, who were residing in the house, were also members of the family. Their Lordships observed: when regard is had to Hindu social customs and manners, it is difficult to hold that the term "family" i