Law:

Section:

Date of hearing : 26th June 1965.                                                                                                                                        JUDGMENT The only question raised in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is that (1) the trial Court, in order to ascertain the correct value of the suit house, should have invited bids in public auction, and (2) that in spite of the objection of the appellant that the Court should refrain from appointing a Commissioner for that purpose, her objection was overruled without any satisfactory reason.  In support of his first contention, the learned counsel relied on section 6 of Partition Act, 1893 (hereinafter called the Act), which reads as under :-- "6. (1) Every sale under section 2 shall be subject to a reserved bidding, and the amount of such bidding shall be fixed by the Court in such manner as it may think tit and may be varied from time to time. (2) On any such sale any of the shareholders shall be at liberty to bid at the sale on such terms as to non-payment of deposit or as to setting off or accounting for the purchase money or any part thereof instead of paying the same as the Court may seem reasonable. (3) If two or more persons, of whom one is a shareholder in the property, respectively advance the same sum at any bidding at such sale, such bidding shall be deemed to be the bidding of the shareholder. " Subsection (1) ibid would show that section 6 of the Act would apply in a case in which the suit property has been the subject-matter of sale under section 2 of the Act. And in order to see, if the sale in this case would be covered by section 2, it may also be reproduced :- "2. Whenever in any suit for partition in which, if instituted prior to the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been…