Find a Lawyer

High Court Appeals Nos. 44 and 47 of 1975, decided on '9th April,

-------S.3(2) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1903), O. XX, r.18 ‑ Partition‑‑Consent decree‑‑Interpretation of--Parties applying for consent preliminary decree to be passed and Court accordingly passing preliminary decree ordering appointment of office Assignee to take account of income and expenditure of property from a defendant and to ascertain valuation of property and to put up same for approval of Court‑Court further directing that after valuation being approved by Court "it would be open to defendants to apply to Court under S. 3 (2) of Partition Act. 1893 for leave to buy shares of other parties if they so wish, offering to pay, highest price above valuation made by Court " Words "to buy the shares of the other parties", held, can only refer to party asking for sale, viz. plaintiff and thus decree provided only for sale of share of plaintiff.‑[Decree‑Interpretation of statutes].

‑‑ Ss. 3 & 8‑Section 8, Partition Act, 1893 providing for order of sale under S 3 to be deemed a decree.‑Contention that appeal against order under S. 3 not being against final order hence not competent, held, not correct and such appeal competent.‑[Appeal (civil)].

Akhter Mahmood for Appellants (in H. C. A. 44/75).

Respondent No. 1 in person (in H. C A. 44/75).

Syed Inayat Ali for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (in H. C. A. 44/75).

Zaffor Alam Khan for Respondents Nos. 5 to 13 (in H. C. A. 44/75).

Zafar Alam Khan for Appellants (in H. C. A. 47/75).

Akhter Mahmood for Respondents Nos. 1 to 9.

Syed Inayat Ali for Respondent No. 10.

Date of hearing : 22nd April, 1980.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.