Short Note : 1. A preliminary decree was passed by which it was stated that Rupal's interest in the whole property was only half and half was that of his mother Mst. Ruliabai. In the final decree proceedings, the Commissioner was directed to make a partition of the interest of Rupal. The Commissioner found that the whole area of the property was 1.938 sq.ft. He, therefore, apportioned an area of 969 sq. ft. abutting the road to Rupal. This area thus allotted to Rupal, also included the portion of the property sold to Dwarka Prasad. Against this final decree for partition, Ruliabai appealed and in the appeal she indicated her option to purchase the share sold to Dwarka Prasad. The Commissioner was thus entrusted to find out the valuation of the property so that amount could be paid to Dwarka Prasad in exercise of option under section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. The Commissioner determined the valuation which undoubtedly appears to be somewhat exaggerated. The defendant has therefore, come up in second appeal contending that the partition was unfair and that the valuation by the Commissioner of the share (If the property purchased by Dwarka Prasad was unrealistic and wholly wrong. Held: It appears clear to me that the manner in which the partition was done was unfair and was liable to be struck down for that reason. The portion of the house property abutting the road would undoubtedly be much more than the portion lying at the back which could be approached through the lane. The portion abutting the road could undoubtedly be used for opening a shop whereas the hind portion could only be used for residential purposes and that too not a fitting residential house being in a lane - The portion marked out to the share of Rupal was much more valuable than the share allotted to Ruliabai. This is patent enough to need any evidence. The partition should have been on the basis of the valuation of the two portions rather than on the basis of area occupied. Be that as it may, the controversy does not survive as Ruliabai died during the pendency of second appeal and the only person entitled to the share of Ruliabai would be Rupal who had sold the land to Dwarka Prasad. Be that as it may, the controversy does not survive as Ruliabai died during the pendency of second appeal and the only person entitled to the share of Ruliabai would be Rupal who had sold the land to Dwarka Prasad. In view of the Supreme Court decision in Silla Chandra Sekharam v. Ramchandra Sahu, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1789, after the interest of Ruliabai was inherited by Rupal, he would be estopped from challenging the sale in favour of Dwarka Prasad on the ground that he possessed only half interest in the property. On the death of his mother, Rupal obtained the entire interest in the portion of the house sold to Dwarka Prasad and, therefore, the sale in his favour would be binding on him. I would, therefore, not interfere with the judgment and decree of the Court below. AIR 1964 SC 1789 , relied on. Appeal dismissed.