Partition Act requires a true request for public sale, while equitable partition may still apply with fair compensation.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 are attracted only when a shareholder expressly seeks public sale and distribution of the proceeds; a plea for one co-sharer to buy out the other does not satisfy that statutory condition. Even where the Act does not apply, if property cannot be conveniently partitioned by metes and bounds, the court may adopt an equitable mode of partition by allowing one co-sharer to retain the property on payment of compensation. Any such valuation must be fair and realistic, and the compensation was remitted for reconsideration on fresh evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaint or the defendant's written statement contained the request for public sale necessary to attract Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893; (ii) whether, when the property was incapable of convenient partition, the Court could nevertheless adopt an equitable method of partition by allowing one co-sharer to retain the property on payment of compensation.

Issue (i): whether the plaint or the defendant's written statement contained the request for public sale necessary to attract Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires a request by the relevant shareholders for sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds before the Court can act under Section 3. The pleadings in the suit merely proposed that, if division was not feasible, one party may buy the other's share at a reasonable price fixed by the Court. Such a request is not a request for public sale and distribution of the sale proceeds. The alternative offer in the written statement similarly amounted only to a proposal to purchase the plaintiffs' share and did not satisfy the statutory condition precedent.

Conclusion: No request within the meaning of Section 2 was made, and Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 were not attracted.

Issue (ii): whether, when the property was incapable of convenient partition, the Court could nevertheless adopt an equitable method of partition by allowing one co-sharer to retain the property on payment of compensation.

Analysis: Although the Act did not apply, the finding that the property was too small to be conveniently partitioned by metes and bounds remained binding. In such a situation, the Court could adopt an equitable mode of partition outside the Act. Since the defendant was the smaller co-sharer and was using the premises as a shop-cum-residence, equity justified giving him the first option to retain the property, but the valuation adopted by the High Court was inadequate. The proper course was to determine compensation on a fairer basis, taking into account the rise in value and local market conditions, and to remit the matter for further evidence on valuation.

Conclusion: The Court could grant equitable partition outside the Act, but the valuation had to be reconsidered and the matter remitted for that purpose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's approach on valuation was set aside, and the case was remitted for fresh determination of compensation on equitable lines while preserving the defendant's preferential option to retain the property.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory conditions for sale under the Partition Act are absent, a court may still effect partition by an equitable mode such as owelty, but any compensation fixed must reflect a fair and realistic valuation of the co-sharer's share.

---