1973 Supreme(All) 61

Allahbad High Court
N.D.OJHA
Kashi Nath Bhatt - Appellant
Versus
Atma Ram - Respondent
Decided On : 03/07/1973

Headnote:

PARTITION ACT, 1893 - SECTION 4 - VALUATION OF SHARE OF TRANSFEREE IN DWELLING HOUSE - TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF MARKET VALUE AS IT EXISTS ON THE DATE OF PREPARATION OF THE FINAL DECREE - COURT HAS DISCRETION TO FIX VALUATION CONSIDERING RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES.

Fact of the Case:

Atma Ram filed a suit for partition of a dwelling house and land appurtenant thereto. The defendants claimed the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, which gives them the right to buy the plaintiff's share at a valuation determined by the court. The trial court decreed the suit and directed that the valuation of the plaintiff's share be determined while preparing the final decree. The plaintiff filed a second appeal, which was dismissed, and a review petition was also dismissed. In the proceedings for the preparation of the final decree, the plaintiff applied to have the valuation of his share determined based on the market value as it existed on the date of the preparation of the final decree, arguing that the defendants had sold away portions of the land appurtenant to the house and were not entitled to the benefit of Section 4. The trial court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 but upheld the plaintiff's claim that the value of his share should be determined on the basis of the market value of the property as it existed on the date of the preparation of the final decree. Both parties filed revisions challenging the trial court's decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the defendants were entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, despite having sold away portions of the land appurtenant to the dwelling house, as the dwelling house itself had not been transferred to a stranger. The court also held that the valuation of the plaintiff's share should be determined on the basis of the market value of the property as it existed on the date of the preparation of the final decree, taking into consideration the circumstances of each case, the conduct of the parties, and other relevant factors.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, despite having sold away portions of the land appurtenant to the dwelling house? 2. Whether the valuation of the plaintiff's share should be determined on the basis of the market value of the property as it existed on the date of the institution of the suit or on the date of the preparation of the final decree?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, strictly, holding that it should be construed so as to limit the statutory interference with the legal rights of the plaintiff. The court found that the defendants had not ceased to be entitled to the benefit of Section 4 simply because they had transferred a portion of the land appurtenant to the dwelling house, as the dwelling house itself had not been transferred to a stranger. 2. The court held that the valuation of the plaintiff's share should be determined on the basis of the market value of the property as it existed on the date of the preparation of the final decree, taking into consideration the circumstances of each case, the conduct of the parties, and other relevant factors. The court reasoned that this was necessary to ensure that the plaintiff received a fair price for his share and to prevent unjust enrichment of either party.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both the plaintiff's and the defendants' revisions, holding that the trial court had correctly decided the issues.