Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Section 4(1) of the Partition Act provides that if a partition suit by transferee of share in a dwelling house is filed and the 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 share holder undertakes 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 share holder and may give all necessary and proper protection in that behalf.

14. In the case of Naveen Kumar and another (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court was also dealing with the suit for specific performance and the ratio therein, according to this Court, is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Patna High Court in the case of Lal Kejriwal and others (supra) was dealing with a case involving a decree for pre-emption. Referring to section 4 of the Partition Act, the Patna High Court observed that sub-section (1) of section 4 on its plain reading, gives option to any member of the family, who is a co-sharer in respect of the dwelling house, a portion whereof has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family, to purchase the share of such transferee, if a suit for partition is filed by that transferee and on such option being exercised, the valuation of such share has to be determined. The amount so determined has to be deposited by such co-sharer, whereupon the share of the transferee is to be sold to such co-sharer. This option can be exercised at any stage of the suit. With regard to question as to what will be the crucial date for the purpose of fixing valuation of the share of such transferee - the date of the institution of the suit or the date of filing of the application under section 4 of the Act, it was observed by the said High Court that there is nothing in section 4 from which this question can be answered. The Court expressed that it will be more reasonable to hold that the valuation should be fixed with respect to the date when option to purchase in accordance with section 4 of the Partition Act is exercised by the defendant co-sharer.

15. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Mt. Sumitra v. Dhannu Bhiwji, AIR 1952 Nagpur 193 (2) and a case from this Court i.e., Bhikari Behera v. Dharmananda Natia, AIR 1963 Orissa 40. In both the aforesaid cases, it was held that the date of the institution of the suit should be the relevant date for the purpose of fixing of the value of the house in question, because, the valuation of the building had gone up during the period between the purchase and the institution of the suit. However, in the aforesaid cases, the question, as to whether the relevant date was the date of institution of the suit or the date of exercising option under section 4 of the Act, was not considered. The Patna High Court expressed that the valuation should be fixed taking into account the date on which the option under section 4 of the Partition Act is exercised. This view is also supported by the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Subal Chandra Modak v. Gostha Behari Das (1956) 60 Cal. W.N. 829 and also another decision of the said High Court. Thus finding, the Patna High Court confirmed the order of the court below fixing the valuation of the property when option was given to purchase the share of the petitioners.