Report No. 86
2.6. Comment of Government of Bombay.-
Among the changes desired by the Government of Bombay was a provision that where members resisting partition represented one-third of the aggregate estate, partition should not be decreed if the share of the members demanding partition could be made a charge on the estate. On the other hand, the Advocate-General of Bombay and Mr. Justice Parsons and Mr. Justice Telang of the Bombay High Court approved of the Bill in substance. Mr. Batty, Acting Legal Remembrancer, Bombay, strongly opposed the Bill, and thought that before so drastic an enactment as the English Partition Act was imported that before so drastic an enactment as the English Partition Act was imported in a more modern form. His suggestion was that before a sale could be ordered, a request must have been made by one moiety of the persons interested, and the dissent of the other interested parties must be unreasonable or frivolous.1
1. Discussion regarding history of the Bill is based on papers relating to the Partition Act, 1893 (4 of 1893); National Archives, Printed file, Home (Judicial) Department, 1891, particularly pp. 1-12, Minute dated the 19th September, 1890.