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

Report No. 86

6.12. Practical aspects considered.-

Having regard to this conflict of decisions, the question to be considered is-what is the direction in which the law should be amended? It appears to us that from the practical point of view, there is much to be said for incorporating the wider construction.1-2 In the earlier Madras case,3 which takes the narrower view,4 it has been stated that unless the sections are construed in the narrower manner, there would be much difficulty in applying them, because the sale would be by public auction when anybody might bid for the property "unless the Court expressly confines it to the parties only". But, with great respect, it is not easy to understand how this should cause any serious difficulty. If an application is made under section 3 before the property is sold, naturally the sale would be stopped. Small inconvenience might be caused to the prospective bidders, but no serious difficulty seems to be likely to arise from a wider construction of section 3(1).

1. Nitish Chandra v. Promod Kumar, AIR 1953 Cal 18.

2. Para. 6.10, supra.

3. Angamuthu v. Ratna, ILR 48 Mad 920: AIR 1925 Mad 1234 (1235).

4. Para. 6.9, supra.



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