DARBHAMULLA SUBBAMMA Vs. VALIVETTI VEERAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Courts below have not paid the slightest attention to the sections of the Partition Act which they profess to apply. Section 3 of that Act has always been a source of trouble, but even that fact cannot excuse the total disregard by the Lower Courts of even the other provisions of the Act.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. The joint family to which these appeals relate consists of six members, the father, the 1 defendant and the sons, defendants 2 to 6. The 2nd defendant conveyed his sixth share in some items to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 267 of 1922 for Rs. 200. He similarly sold his interest in certain other items to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 268 of 1922 for Rs. 800. Each alienee has filed a suit claiming his share in the items alienated. In their written statement, the defendants offered to buy the plaintiff's share at a valuation. In each case, the Lower Courts, purporting to apply the Partition Act, have fixed the price of the plaintiff's interest and directed her to receive the amount in lieu of her share in the items conveyed. The plaintiffs question the correctness of this order.

(3.) I shall first consider the various sections of the Act before examining whether the orders can be sustained. In the first place, there is a broad distinction between Secs.2, 3 and 6, forming a group, on the one hand, and Section 4 on the other. Clause (1) of the last mentioned section runs thus: Where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is: not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the Court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.