BARATAM SATYANARAYANA Vs. BARATAM KANTHARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a question of interpretation of the provisions of Sections 2, 3, 6(2), 7(b) of the Partition Act read with Rule 9(1) of the Rules framed under that Act and the applicability or otherwise of Order 21, Rules 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure and of Rules 193 to 205 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The point is whether upon a sale among co-sharers of joint property under Section 3 of the Partition Act (hereinafter called the Act), failure to deposit the bid amount would automatically require the property to be resold by invoking Order 21, Rule 84, C.P.C. or whether the Court could extend time without reference to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84, C.P.C.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : - The petitioner in this revision is the 2nd defendant in the suit which was originally filed in the year 1974 and was subsequently numbered as O.S. No. 20/78 on the file of Sub Court, Srikakulam. After passing of the preliminary decree the petitioner 2nd defendant filed LA. No. 378/78 for passing of a final decree. The Commissioner submitted his report on 11-6-1979 stating that inasmuch as the parties did not agree for division, the provisions of the Partition Act are to be applied and he valued the items at a particular , valuation. It appears that the auction was held on 10-11-1981 between the co-sharers in the presence of the Court in respect of items 1, 12, 13 of the plaint B.

(3.) As the Court allowed a sale between the co-sharers, the case falls under Section 3 of the Partition Act and not under Section 2. As each of the co-sharer agreed to purchase a specific item, and all of them so agreed, no objection was taken nor can be raised about the procedure adopted for the sale in 1981.