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

Report No. 86

2.9. Mr. Seal's comment.-

The most interesting comment, however, from our point of view, was that of Mr. Brojendra Coomar Seal,1 District Judge, Bankoora, who suggested the following rules, namely-

"I. When the property can conveniently be divided into as many parts as there are shares, it should be so divided.

II. When it cannot be so divided, but when a portion of the property can be allotted to each sharer, to equalize the shares the Court should have the power to direct one sharer to pay compensation to another for the difference between the portion actually allotted to him and the portion he is entitled to. HI. When all the sharers wish, or when the Court finds it impossible to divide the property according to rule I or II, the whole or a portion of the partible property may be valued by the Court at what it is actually worth, and, taking that to be the upset price, cause it to be sold to that sharer who will pay the highest price above the upset value. If none of the sharers wish to purchase, or to purchase at the upset price, then the surrounding neighbours may be allowed to compete for the property, and it may be sold to that neighbour who will pay the highest price above the upset value. If the neighbours do not come forward, then it may be put up to public sale irrespective of the upset price, subject to the rules in Chapter XIX of the Civil Procedure Code so far as they are applicable."

His views found support1 in the comment of Sir A.R. Scoble, Q.C.

1. See also para. 2.13, infra.

2. Para. 2.13, infra.



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