Partition Act rights: plaintiff could not withdraw after Section 2 and Section 3 processes were triggered.

In a partition suit, once the plaintiff invoked Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 and a co-sharer applied under Section 3 to purchase the share at valuation, the statutory scheme gave that co-sharer a substantive right to have the share valued and offered for sale. The plaintiff could not withdraw the suit at that stage because withdrawal would defeat the Act's purpose and deprive the co-sharer of the statutory privilege already set in motion. The Court held that the plaintiff was not wholly dominus litis in these circumstances, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaintiff in a partition suit could withdraw the suit after invoking Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 and after another shareholder had applied under Section 3 to buy the plaintiff's share at a valuation.

Analysis: In a partition suit, once the plaintiff requests a sale under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 and another shareholder applies under Section 3 to purchase the share at a valuation, the statutory scheme confers on that shareholder a substantive advantage. The court must then proceed to valuation and offer the share for purchase in the manner prescribed by the Act. Allowing withdrawal at that stage would defeat the purpose of Section 3 and deprive the other shareholder of the benefit obtained through the proceedings. The plaintiff is not wholly dominus litis in such circumstances, and withdrawal cannot be permitted to defeat the co-sharer's statutory privilege.

Conclusion: The plaintiff could not withdraw the suit after the Section 2 and Section 3 processes had been set in motion; the appeal failed.

---