empt and purchase the share sold to an outsider anytime he/she wants. Thus even though a liberal interpretation may be given, the interpretation cannot be one which gives a right which the Legislature clearly did not intend to confer. The Legislature was aware that in a Suit for Partition the stranger/outsider, who has purchased a share, would have to be made a party. The Legislature was aware that in a Suit for Partition the parties are interchangeable. The Legislature was aware that a Partition Suit would result in a decree for Partition and in most cases a division by metes and bounds. The Legislature was aware that on an actual division, like all other co-sharers, the stranger/outsider would also get possession of his share. Yet the Legislature did not provide that the right for pre-emption could be exercised "in any Suit for Partition". The Legislature only provided for such right when the "transferee sues for partition". The intention of the Legislature is clear. There had to be initiation of proceedings or the making of a claim to partition by the stranger/outsider. This could be by way of initiating a proceeding for partition or even claiming partition in execution. However, a mere assertion of a claim to a share without demanding separation and possession (by the outsider) is not enough to give to the other cosharers a right of pre-emption. There is a difference between a mere assertion that he has a share and a claiming for possession of that share. So long as the stranger/purchaser does not seek actual division and possession, either in the suit or in execution proceedings, it cannot be said that he has sued for partition. The interpretation given by the Calcutta, Patna, Nagpur and Orissa High Courts would result in nullifying the express provisions of Section 4, which only gives a right when the transferee sues for partition. If that interpretation were to be accepted then in all
