Report No. 86
7.17. Third view-the widest one.-
The third and widest view is represented by a Calcutta case.1 The High Court not only held the section to be applicable even where the transferee figures as a defendant, but also observed that the presence or absence of the additional factor, namely, that the defendant transferee had applied for allotment (of a specific share), did not make any real difference. In the opinion of the Court, the basic reason behind some of the decisions which took the wider view was, that the words "to sue" signified not only "to prosecute", but also "to defend"-of course, in the light of the peculiar nature of a partition suit.
1. Haradhone Haldar v. Usha Charan Karmakar, AIR 1955 Cal 292 (294).