Section 3. Procedure when sharer undertakes to buy
(1) If, in any case in which the court is requested under the last foregoing section to direct a sale, any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the share or shares of the party or parties asking for a sale, the court shall order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner as it may think fit and offer to sell the same to such shareholder at the price so ascertained, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.
(2) If two or more shareholders severally apply for leave to buy as provided in sub-section (1), the court shall order a sale of the share or shares to the shareholder who offers to pay the highest price above the valuation made by the court.
(3) If no such shareholder is willing to buy such share or shares at the price so ascertained, the applicant or applicants shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application or applications.
How courts have applied section 3
- A formal application under Section 3(1) is not necessary; an averment in the written statement suffices.1
- The relevant date for valuation of shares is the date leave to purchase was sought, not the date of the preliminary decree.2
- Section 3 rights are confined to parties to the partition suit who are shareholders or undivided family members; third-party purchasers cannot invoke them.3
- The right to buy under Section 3 arises only after a request for sale is made under Section 2.4
- Where two or more shareholders apply, the one offering the highest price above the court's valuation may be permitted to purchase.5
- A non-speaking dismissal of a Section 3 application is unsustainable and must be remanded for reasons to be recorded.6
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
These judgements mostly concern final decree proceedings in partition suits, where courts considered whether to order a sale under Section 2 and how the preferential right to buy under Section 3 operates. The right to buy under Section 3 arises only after a request for sale is made under Section 2, and courts repeatedly held that a formal application under Section 3(1) is unnecessary; an averment in a written statement suffices.2,1,4
A recurring question is the valuation date for the share to be purchased. Courts held that the relevant date is when the leave to purchase was sought, not the date of the preliminary decree, and that valuation should follow accrual of the right as soon as possible. Where two or more shareholders apply to buy, the shareholder offering the highest price above the court's valuation may be permitted to purchase. The privilege of buying at a valuation cannot be defeated by the plaintiff withdrawing the suit.2,5,1
Section 3 rights are available only to shareholders or undivided family members who are parties to the partition suit, not to third parties claiming title by purchase. Courts also addressed practical issues: the appointment of a Commissioner to ascertain whether division by metes and bounds is feasible was held to be a proper step before invoking Sections 3 and 4. A non-speaking dismissal of a Section 3 application, without recording why the applicant lacked a preferential right, was held unsustainable.3,7,8,9,6
In several cases, courts either set aside sale orders or remanded matters where procedural requirements under Sections 2 to 6, including feasibility reports, were not complied with. Some orders were routine, such as applications becoming infructuous due to settlement or subsequent events.10,11,12,13,14
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
A partition suit involving co-sharers where a preliminary decree could not be implemented by metes and bounds. The Supreme Court held that the court below erred in allowing a belated offer from a subsequent assignee to override a confirmed sale in favour of the larger shareholder.
AllowedOpenPartition Act, 1893, Sections 2 and 3 — Partition suit — properties incapable of division by metes and bounds; plaintiffs prayed for sale under s.2 and distribution of proceeds; defendants applied under s.3 for leave to buy the plaintiffs' 2/3rd shares at a valuation (affidavit of 5.7.1972;
AllowedOpenBadri Narain Choudhary & Ors. v. Nilratan Sarkar, Civil Appeal No. 2388 of 1968 (Supreme Court of India, 10-03-1978), [1978] 3 SCR 467, Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ. (judgment by Sarkaria, J.). Partition of a tiny (.013 acre) Patna premises; Partition Act 1893 ss. 2, 3(1), 3(2);
AllowedOpenPartition suit over a cinema; defendant offered to buy plaintiff's share at a valuation under Section 3 of the Partition Act. The Supreme Court held the plaintiff could not defeat that privilege by withdrawing the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, and dismissed the appeal.
DismissedOpenThe petitioner challenged an order appointing a Court Commissioner to inspect a residential house in final decree proceedings, arguing the property was indivisible. The High Court held that the feasibility of partition cannot be decided solely on the property's description and requires spot assessment.
DisposedOpenNandkumar Shankarrao Rasne Vs Jamnadas Prabhudas Bhagwani Died Thr Lrs Bai Jamnadas Bhagwani and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedThe High Court of Bombay allowed a writ petition whereby the petitioner, a judgment debtor aggrieved by the rejection of his application to object to the executability of a decree requiring demolition, sought relief.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Delhi High Court, RFA 88/2026 & CM APPL. 5495/2026, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., decided 02.02.2026. Partition appeal challenging Final Decree dated 11.11.2025 (Judgment dated 13.05.2025, DJ-02, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, CS No.1804/2016) for non-appointment of Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rules…
Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction Karnataka HC; recall of order dated 11.11.2011 directing public auction; fresh public auction of schedule 'B' property; I.A.No.5 under Section 151 CPC rejected 04.07.2025 by XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-7) Bengaluru in FDP No.88/2006;
DismissedOpenWrit petition (Article 227, GM-CPC) by plaintiff-side sharers in O.S.No.87/1991 against the order dated 22.07.2024 of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore in FDP No.6/2004, whereby the Commissioner's report dated 19.01.2023 — finding physical partition of the ~18.36-acre 'A' Schedule agricultural land at…
DisposedOpenKarnataka HC upholds trial court order allowing applications under Ss.2 and 3 Partition Act 1893 for public auction of indivisible residential property in FDP No.125/2023 following final preliminary decree in O.S.No.3452/2015; commissioner reported property not divisible by metes and bounds;
DisposedOpenCS(OS) 700/2022, Seema Dayal & Ors. v. Mala Mathur & Anr., High Court of Delhi, order dated 18.09.2025, Amit Bansal, J.; partition-related suit settled by executed sale deed; defendant no.1 purchased plaintiffs' share; I.A. 8658/2025 under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 disposed as infructuous; suit disposed;
Civil Suit (Original Side)OpenThird-party purchaser sought to invoke Sections 3 and 4 of Partition Act within final decree proceedings of a partition suit to which he was not a party. The High Court held those provisions benefit only shareholders or family members who are parties to the suit, upheld return of the application and dismissed the…
DismissedOpen
Art. 227 Karnataka HC: reasoned order required before rejecting application under Ss. 2 & 3 Partition Act 1893 for purchasher's preferential right in FDP; remand to XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; consideration in light of WP.No.15176/2020 auction first-preference order;
AllowedOpenKarnataka High Court RFA 882/2023 (decided 25.04.2026) — partition suit final decree proceedings (FDP 181/2014); court commissioner appointed for Feasibility Report submitted only valuation report;
DisposedOpenArticle 227 writ petition (GM-CPC) dismissed as infructuous on account of subsequent event; FDP No.03/2006; application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893; direction sought to trial court (V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-13); prayer not surviving for consideration;
DismissedOpenKarnataka High Court, Bengaluru; H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. (single judge); decided 10.03.2026; Writ Petition No. 28644 of 2025 (GM-CPC) under Article 227, Constitution of India; final decree proceedings F.D.P. No.36/1996 before XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; suit O.S.
AllowedOpenPartition Act 1893 Section 3 procedure when sharer undertakes to buy; shareholder highest price above valuation; co-sharer right to purchase in final decree proceedings; public auction set aside and fresh auction ordered; Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice 1967 Rules 138 139 140 auction procedure; FDP No.121/2019;
DisposedOpenKarnataka HC, 05.02.2026, WP 12594/2025 (GM-CPC), Art. 227, dismissed. Recall/review of final decree order 07.10.2021 in FDP 69/2024 allowed by trial Court 25.04.2025 under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w S.151 CPC; public sale under S.3 Partition Act for minor's 1/10th share (RA 635/2010 enhanced from 1/15th; O.S.1040/2005);
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
High Court of Karnataka, S.R. Krishna Kumar, J., 19.01.2026, WP No. 20143 of 2025 (GM-CPC). Article 227 petition by judgment debtor No.2 in Ex.31/2017 against rejection of applications under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC and Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 for valuation of execution schedule item No.3 (compromise…
DisposedOpenHigh Court of Karnataka (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.; decided 10.12.2025) dismisses an Article 227 writ petition challenging the order dated 05.12.2020 of the V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in FDP No.3/2006, arising out of partition suit OS No.3721/1985 (decreed 28.01.2002;
DismissedOpenPartition Act, 1893 — Sections 2 and 3 — Final decree proceedings (FDP.No.181/2011, flowing from O.S.No.6294/2003) — Residential house in Koramangala held incapable of division by metes and bounds per coordinate bench order dated 11.01.2021 in RFA 1988/2013 c/w 70/2014 restoring the FDP — Trial Court accepted second…
DismissedOpenWrit Petition (Art. 227) against rejection of IA.no.3 in FDP.No.90/2018 — dismissed. The Trial Court, having already ordered sale of the suit house under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, rejected the objecting co-sharers' Section 3 application for leave to buy the other shareholders' shares but reserved their…
DismissedOpen