Report No. 86
6.6. Anomaly created by section 3.-
As already pointed out above,1 this is a serious anomaly in section 3. The anomaly should be removed by amending section 3(1) so as to enable any co-sharer to apply under that sub-section. The hardship caused by section 3 has been referred to in many judicial decisions.2-3 Because of the anomalies to which we have referred above, the very scheme of section 3 has been criticised in a Calcutta case.4 We have taken due note of this criticism. The changes, which we are recommending5 in section 3 will, we hope, conduce to furthering the interests of co-sharers, by removing those provisions which constitute serious anomalies.
1. Para. 6.4, supra.
2. Original suit No. 750 of 1919 (Madras) referred to in Subbamma v. Veerayya, AIR 1932 Mad 15 (16).
3. Ram Prasad v. Mukandi, AIR 1929 All 443.
4. Nitish Chandra v. Promod Kumar, AIR 1953 Cal 18 (20), para. 22 (DB) (per R.P. Mookerjee, J.).
5. See infra.
Back
