AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 86

7.31. Subsequent cases-Allahabad view.-

Subsequent decisions, however, have expressed more definite views in the matter. Thus, in a later Allahabad case,1 the following observations were made:-

"In such cases ordinarily the purchaser should he asked to deposit in Court the purchase money by a time fixed by the Court, the time to be fixed and extended at the discretion of the Court. If the purchaser deposits the said purchase money within the time allowed by the Court, a decree should be passed in the suit in favour of the purchaser declaring that all rights of the plaintiff or persons claiming partition in the property in suit have been transferred by a Court sale in favour of the defendant on payment of the said sale price and the plaintiffs claim for partition is dismissed. If necessary, a sale certificate may also be issued to the purchaser. In case the defendant or the purchaser makes default in payment of purchase money, a decree for partition be made in favour of the plaintiff and the partition should be proceeded with."

1. Mohammad Sulaiman Khan v. Antir Jan (Mt.), AIR 1941 All 281 (283), (S.K. Das, J.), discussed in Sumitra v. Dhannu, AIR 1952 Nag 193.



The Partition Act, 1893 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys