ANTHONY AMMAL Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision is whether the court can direct a sale of the property involved in a partition suit and distribution of the proceeds even in a case where a request. is not made by a shareholder or shareholders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards and whether such a sale should be conducted in open court. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The challenge is against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat dismissing an application for a review of an order refusing to give a direction to the commissioner appointed in a final decree proceedings in a suit for partition, to stop the sale. The commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings reported to the court that the decree schedule properties can only be sold and the sale proceeds distributed among the sharers and that was allowed by the court. Accordingly, the commissioner fixed a date for selling the properties by auction among the sharers. It was then that the petitioner plaintiff put in a petition to stay the auction sale. On the court rejecting that petition, the petitioner filed an application for review of the order which was dismissed by the order impugned in this Civil Revision.

(2.) S.2 of the Partition Act, 1893 reads:

(3.) Before parting with the case, it is only proper that I refer to some of the decisions relied on by the counsel appearing in the case. In Ramaprasada Rao v. Subbaramaiah (AIR 1958 AP 647) it has been held: