and 2 did not constitute an undivided Hindu joint family, when the suit plot was alienated by defendant nos.1 and 2 to defendant no.3. The sale deed dated 5.6.1995, vide Ext.A, is legal and valid. Consideration was paid. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. He had not made any construction. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved, plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.11 of 1997 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Learned appellate court concurred with the finding of the court below with regard to the previous partition and alienation of the property thereafter. The sale deed was legal and valid. However, it held that “It is true that the dwelling house belonging to the undivided family of plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 had already been partitioned since the year 1991 but the object and the purpose for which Sec.4 of the Partition Act has been introduced is to be considered and the provision of Sec.4 deserves liberal construction because the very object of the partition is to preserve the integrity of the dwelling house. The right of pre-emption under Sec.4 of the Partition Act is available to a cosharer of an undivided family dwelling house when he himself files a suit for partition and the stranger purchaser is arraigned as defendant and irrespective of the fact whether stranger purchaser had actually applied for partition or for separate allotment of his share or not. The whole purpose of the provision of Sec.4 is to keep out dwelling house from the access of stranger, if the persons owning that dwelling house are willing to keep it to themselves by purchase for the same value as strangers offer or for a reasonable price that may be settled by court”. Held so, it allowed the plaintiff to purchase the suit land including the house thereon from defendant no.3 on payment of Rs.7000/- towards consideration and directed defendant no.3 to execute the sale deed in respect of the properties. It is apt to
