UNNIMADHAVAN Vs. RUGMINI PALLIKKARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed, and item No. 13, a building, was ordered to be sold. The Commissioner appointed for the purpose sold it on 2-3-80 to the petitioner, who was the highest bidder. He deposited 25% of the price on the same day, and the balance was to be deposited within 15 days. Before the expiry of the 15 day period, on 13-3-80, he applied to the court for extension of the time for payment. The court took the view that the matter was governed by O.21 R.85 CPC. and that it had no jurisdiction to extend time. The application was dismissed, and the 2nd defendant is now challenging that dismissal.

(2.) The Memorandum of Revision proceeds on the basis that the sale was by public auction; but the order impugned states that the sale was among the sharers only. Both the parties were however agreed before the court below that the sale was under the Partition Act, 1893.

(3.) S.2 of the Partition Act seems to contemplate a public sale, and not one limited to the sharers. Again, the sale under S.2 could only be on the request of persons interested in at least a moiety of the shares. It is not clear whether there was a request of the above kind; if there was not, the sale was probably not under the Act.