a term to demolish the entire building situated in the plaint schedule property and to sell it jointly was arrived at. But, it did not fructify, solely for the reason of withdrawal of the appellant therefrom. According to him, if the above term was materialised and the entire property held by the parties were sold jointly then, the 3rd defendant could have utilized the sale proceeds for purchasing properties elsewhere and constructed building therein. According to him, since the terms of settlement arrived at P.C.S.J, turned unworkable and impracticable that the suit for partition in question was filed. According to the learned counsel, unlike the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant is in a financially backward situation and depending on the income from the printing press run by him in a small scale for eking livelihood. It is contended by the learned counsel that the circumstances being so, the trial court has acted upon the claim putforth by the 3rd defendant to work out a proposal for allotment of respective shares to the parties in the suit, without the portion of the building occupied by him being disturbed. According to him, the trial court has not done something out of turn, to favour the 3rd defendant as contended by the learned counsel, but did the same to maintain equity. According to the learned counsel while passing preliminary decree in the suit, the trial court had also
