K R VENKATRAMA GOUNDER Vs. RANGATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is common ground that two items of properties had been directed to be sold in public auction by the lower Court and that an objection has been taken at the very initial instance itself that both the houses should not be subjected to public sale, because the proceeds of the sale of one of the houses could itself satisfy the requirements of the claim. When such is the position, so far as this revision petition is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Shyamalam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that section 2 of the Partition Act (IV of 1893), which is applicable to the facts of the case, clearly enumerates that the lower Court ought to have applied its mind regarding the distribution of the proceeds of the sale, maintaining its view regarding the beneficial aspect as far as the shareholders are concerned and in the instant case, the learned District Munsif, while ordering the petition under Order 26, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has not adverted to this.

(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Pandi, learned counsel for the respondent in this revision refers to the decision reported in Ramaprasada Rao. v. Subbaramaiah1, and refers to the following observation:

(3.) IT is inter alia argued by Mr. Shyamalam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that inasmuch as the sale proceeds of one of the two houses, which have been now directed to be sold by virtue of the above order under revision can satisfy his claim, the lower Court has not applied its mind as per the provisions of section 2 of the Partition Act.