G. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against order dt. 3rd Feb. 1983 passed by the learned trial Judge in Suit No. 1892 of 1947. ( 2 ) SM. Jharna Bose on the strength of her purchase of the undivided 1/7th share in the disputed properties from Madan Mohan Basak, one of the sons of Nandalal Basak, brought a partition suit being Suit No. 1892 of 1947 in the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court. In 1964, a preliminary decree was passed declaring the shares of the parties and a learned Advocate was appointed as Commissioner of Partition for dividing the disputed properties by metes and bounds in seven equal parts and to allot 1/7th share to each group of parties, alternatively to sell the properties by public auction if it was found that the disputed properties were incapable of partition. The learned trial Judge, however, gave liberty to the parties to bid at such auction and liberty was also given to the parties to purchase the share of Sm. Jharna Bose being a stranger purchaser. The Surveyor appointed for effecting partition by metes and bounds gave a report that the properties were incapable of partition by metes and bounds in several equal shares. There were agreements amongst the Basaks to purchase the share of Sm. Jharna Bose who was a stranger purchaser of the property in question and thereafter several co-sharers jointly purchased the share of Sm. Jharna Bose. After such purchase of the share of Sm. Jharna Bose, her name as plaintiff was struck out and the names of the defendants Salil Kumar Basak and Sanat Kumar Basak who were original defendants in the suit, were transposed to the category of the plaintiff and a direction was given by this court to the Commissioner of Partition to sell the properties by public auction. In view of the death of Sri Sinha, the Commissioner of Partition, Sri R. P. Banerjee, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner of Partition. A registered valuer and Chartered Engineer valued the disputed premises No. 10 Beadon Row at Rs. 2,54,460/- and premises No. 44, Beadon Row at Rs. 71,764/ -. In view of the death of Sri Sinha, the Commissioner of Partition, Sri R. P. Banerjee, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner of Partition. A registered valuer and Chartered Engineer valued the disputed premises No. 10 Beadon Row at Rs. 2,54,460/- and premises No. 44, Beadon Row at Rs. 71,764/ -. In March, 1978, Sri Bimal Kumar Basak, one of the co-sharers, by registered agreement leased out the undivided share in the properties with the power to sublet in favour of one Sri Chandra Sekhar Basak is a stranger purchaser to the family and he was an Advocate of Sri Bimal Basak, the said Bimal Kumar Basak also agreed with another stranger purchaser, Ganesh Chandra Sett to sell his 10/56th share in the properties and a registered agreement to that effect was executed by Bimal Chandra Basak on 10th March, 1978. The plaintiffs thereafter made an application for an order of injunction restraining some of the parties from in any way interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit properties and for making additional or alterations thereto. On 2nd May, 1978, the learned trial Judge passed an order directing the Commissioner of Partition to consider the case of joint allotment of the two properties if possible and pursuant to such direction, a surveyor appointed by the Partition Commissioner submitted a Report on 22nd Jan. 1979 and it was indicated in the said report of the Surveyor that the two properties could be suitably divided into two. In the meantime, the defendant No. 6, Kartick Chandra Basak having undivided 1/14th share in the suit properties transferred such share by registered sale deed in favour of some of the co-sharers. On 11th Dec. 1979, Motilal Basak and others made an application that the preliminary decree dt. 5th June, 1964 and the order dated 1st Sept. 1976 directing the Commissioner of Partition to sell the said property by public auction should be varied and revoked and the Commissioner of Partition should be directed to make joint allotment as directed by the preliminary decree, failing which the partition of the property should be effected by equitable method and leave should be given to the said petitioners to buy the shares of the parties who were asking for sale by public auction under Section 3 of the Partition Act. ( 3 ) ON 12th Dec. ( 3 ) ON 12th Dec. 1980, the learned trial Judge passed the order directing the Commissioner of Partition to sell the said property by public auction after due advertisement and obtaining fresh valuation if necessary and liberty was given to all the parties to bid in such public auction. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, Bimal Kumar Basak, since deceased, transferred his undivided 10/56th share of the suit properties in favour of the two stranger purchasers viz. Chandra Sekhar Basak and Ganesh Chandra Sett and one of the co-sharers Provash Chandra Basak. On 11th Aug. 1982, Sri Kalyan Kumar Basak made an application, inter alia, for an order that the earlier order for sale of the suit property by public auction be stayed and leave be given to the appellant to buy 10/56th share of Bimal Chandra Basak since transferred to the stranger purchasers and Sri Provash Chandra Basak and also to buy the 8/56th share of Motilal Basak for Rs. 46,608/- or at a price to be fixed by this Court. The said application of Kalyan Kumar Basak was disposed of by the learned trial Judge by in order dt. 3rd Feb, 1983. The learned trial Judge declined to grant the prayers made by the said Kalyan Kumar Basak, but the learned trial Judge directed the Commissioner of partition not to sell the suit properties by public auction in terms of the preliminary decree dt. 5th June, 1964 and the order dt. 12th Dec. 1980. The learned trial Judge directed that the said property should be sold by auction amongst the parties to the suit with liberty to them to bid either individually or in a group and to purchase such properties as the highest bidder and such sale was subject to confirmation of the court and the purchase money should be adjusted against the value of the shares of the parties. As aforesaid, the instant appeal has been preferred against such order. ( 5 ) MR. P. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri Kalyan Kumar Basak has contended that the order dt. 12th Dec. 1980 directing the Commissioner of Partition to sell the property by public auction should not be treated as an order under S. 8 of the Partition Act, so as to make the said order appealable. P. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri Kalyan Kumar Basak has contended that the order dt. 12th Dec. 1980 directing the Commissioner of Partition to sell the property by public auction should not be treated as an order under S. 8 of the Partition Act, so as to make the said order appealable. He has submitted that Section 2 of the Partition Act contemplates that on the request of any shareholder to the extent of moiety share, the Court can direct a sale of the property and direct for distribution of the sale proceeds. Such condition was not fulfilled when the said order dt. 12th Dec. 1980 was passed. Accordingly, S. 8 of the Partition Act was not attracted. Mr. Das has referred to S. 4 of the Partition Act and has contended that S. 4 should be liberally construed because the object of the said section is to preserve the integrity of the dwelling house. In a suit for partition, it is immaterial who is arrayed as a plaintiff or in the category of a defendant. The status as a plaintiff or a defendant practically loses its significance in a partition suit. For this contention, Mr. Das has referred to a Bench decision of this court made in the case of Santosh Kumar Mitra v. Kalipada Das reported in AIR 1981 Cal 278 . Mr. Das has also referred to a Bench decision of this Court made in the case of Bholanath Karmakar v. Sailendra Nath Pramanick, reported in AIR 1984 Cal 319 for the proposition that if a stranger purchaser is a defendant in a partition suit, it cannot be said that S. 4 of the Partition Act is not attracted. It has been contended by Mr. Das that the two purchasers of the share of Bimal Kumar Basak are strangers to the family and to become a member of a family having right in the family dwelling house, mere relation by blood is not sufficient. For this contention, reliance was placed in the decision of this court made in the case of Bato Krishna v. Akshoy Kumar, reported in (1946) 50 Cal WN 450. Mr. For this contention, reliance was placed in the decision of this court made in the case of Bato Krishna v. Akshoy Kumar, reported in (1946) 50 Cal WN 450. Mr. Das has also contended that even a descendant of a common ancestor is not always a member of the family and for the said proposition he has relied on a decision of this court made in the case of Madhukar Prajivan v. Jagmohan Narottam reported in (1986) 1 Cal LJ 241. Mr. Das has further contended that Chandra Sekhar Basak and Ganesh Chandra Sett cannot be accepted as the family members for the purpose of residing in the joint dwelling house of the family and for exercising the right of preemption for such dwelling house of the family. Mr. Das has contended that there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits passing of more than one preliminary decree if for equity and ends of justice more than one preliminary decrees are required to be passed. He has contended that in a partition suit if after the preliminary decree, some transfer is effected in respect of undivided share by a co-sharer and for such transfer adjustment amongst the parties is warranted, the Court can and should do so and the Court of Appeal can also pass such an order because such variation will also amount to a preliminary decree. For this contention, Mr. Das has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1470 . Mr. Das has contended that the parties having a total 8/56th share in the premises in question are making demand for sale of such premises by public auction. Admittedly 10/56th share are being held by two strangers and an heir of one of the co-sharers but they have not opposed the prayer of joint allotment in favour of some of the parties to the suits having a total share of 38/56th part. Mr. Dass has contended that an application for pre-emption can be made at any stage and there is no difficulty in allowing such prayer of pre-emption. ( 6 ) MR. Mr. Dass has contended that an application for pre-emption can be made at any stage and there is no difficulty in allowing such prayer of pre-emption. ( 6 ) MR. B. C. Dutt, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10, 11, 12 and 17 has contended that the sale by public auction will enure to the benefit of all the parties because highest offer is obtained if it is sold in public auction and not confined to the co-sharers. Hence, in no case, purchase by the co-sharers should be allowed for the better interest of all the parties. Mr. Dutt has also contended that once an order is passed by the Court for sale of the disputed properties by public auction, such order becomes final and binding and in no case modification of such order is permissible by the learned trial judge simply on an application for such modification. He has also contended that even assuming that it is possible to amend an order of public auction, the order of public auction not having been challenged in an appeal and no prayer for modification of the order for public auction having been made in such appeal, such order for sale by public auction must remain in force and cannot be altered collaterally. Mr. Dutt has contended, Mr. Justice Sarkar had directed for public auction of the disputed properties and Justice Mrs. Khastgir has also taken the same view. Such orders, therefore, must prevail and no variation of such order is permissible. Mr. Dutt has strongly relied on a decision of this court made in the case of Gadadhar Ghosh v. Janaki Nath Ghosh reported in 72 Cal WN 299. It has been held in the said decision that the Court has no inherent power to direct for sale of properties in a partition suit except under the provisions of the Partition Act. A sale under S. 2 of the Partition Act must be a public sale and cannot be confined within the co-sharers. Mr. Dutt has also referred to a decision of the Orissa High Court made in the case of Sundari Bewa v. Ranka Behara reported in AIR 1968 Orissa 134. A sale under S. 2 of the Partition Act must be a public sale and cannot be confined within the co-sharers. Mr. Dutt has also referred to a decision of the Orissa High Court made in the case of Sundari Bewa v. Ranka Behara reported in AIR 1968 Orissa 134. It has been held in the said decision that in a suit for partition instituted at the instance of a stranger purchaser where all the other co-sharers also claim to partition of their shares as well, the right of pre-emption of such co-sharer stands extinguished. Mr. Dutt has contended that as the present appellant had earlier made a prayer for sale of the disputed properties, he cannot be permitted at a later stage to ask for pre-emption for purchasing the share of Chandra Shekhar Basak and Ganesh Chandra Sett on the ground that they are stranger purchasers. Mr. Dutt has, therefore, contended that in the facts of the case, the prayer of the present appellant to purchase the share of the alleged strangers and also the other co-sharers and to allot the disputed premises to the co-sharers jointly having 38/56th share cannot be permitted at this stage and the property in question should be sold in auction in terms of the orders of the learned trial Judge and the Partition Commissioner should be directed to effect such sale for dividing the sale proceeds to the co-sharers in accordance with their shares. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has also supported Mr. Dutt and has adopted his arguments. On the other hand, Mr. Pal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 9 has supported Mr. P. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It has been contended by Mr. Pal that Chadra Sekhar has purchased Bimal's share but since Chandra Sekhar was a lawyer of Bimal, such purchase by lawyer is opposed to public policy. He has contended that the contract by a lawyer with his client is opposed to public policy in view of S. 23 of the Contract Act. In this connection, Mr. Pal has referred to a bench decision of the Bombay High Court made in the case of In Re : K. L. Gauba reported in AIR 1954 Bom 478 and a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of In Re : Mr. In this connection, Mr. Pal has referred to a bench decision of the Bombay High Court made in the case of In Re : K. L. Gauba reported in AIR 1954 Bom 478 and a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of In Re : Mr. 'g' a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 557 . He has contended that Provas Chandra Basak is admittedly a co-sharer but he has purchased along with Chandra Sekhar and Ganesh Chandra Sett and if the joint purchase by Chandra Sekhar and Ganesh Chandra fails, the whole transaction must fail because the entire transaction is one and indivisible. For such contention, Mr. Pal has referred to the decision of the High Court of Australia made in the case of Thomas Brown and Sons v. Fazal Been reported in 1998 CLR 391. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears to us that the houses in question are dwelling house of the Basak family. It also appears to us that purchasers of undivided 10/56th shares of Bimal Chandra Basak v. Chandra Sekhar Basak and Ganesh Chandra Sett are not members of the Basak family. A reference to the genealogical table appearing at pages 35 and 36 of the Paper Book of the appeal clearly indicates that the said purchasers cannot be treated as members of the Basak family. A mere relation by blood does not entitle a person to claim himself or herself as a family member for the purpose of exercising right of pre-emption in the family dwelling house and in our view Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly contended by relying on the decision of this court in Bata Krishna's case, (1946) 50 Cal WN 450 that the said purchasers of the share of Bimal Chandra Basak must be treated as stranger purchasers. It appears to us that at the present co-sharers having 38/56th share in the premises in question are intending to retain the said family dwelling house in their shares by paying the price of remaining 18/56th shares to other co-sharers and for their transferees by way of owelty money. It appears to us that at the present co-sharers having 38/56th share in the premises in question are intending to retain the said family dwelling house in their shares by paying the price of remaining 18/56th shares to other co-sharers and for their transferees by way of owelty money. It may be noted that the purchasers of Bimal's shares to the extent of 10/56 has not also opposed the prayer made by the co-sharers having a total 38/56th share to retain possession of the disputed properties by paying the price of the shares to the other co-sharers. It is the co-sharers, having only 8/56th share who are opposing such prayer and are contending that in view of the earlier direction of the learned trial Judge, the properties in question should be sold by public auction. It appears to us that in a partition suit, even after the preliminary decree if on the basis of subsequent events, there are changes in the situation including changes in the grouping of shares amongst the parties or acquisition of shares of other co-sharers by some of the co-sharers for which the decree for partition can be suitably moulded, the Court can and should do so and in such circumstances the variation of the preliminary decree can always be made. There is nothing in the Civil P. C. which prohibits passing of more than one preliminary decree if in the facts and circumstances of a case and in consideration of equity and justice, such variation of the preliminary decree is warranted. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Phoolchand's case, AIR 1967 SC 1470 since relied on by Mr. Dass, the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 4 of the Partition Act deserves a liberal construction because the very object of the said provision is to preserve the integrity of the dwelling house. It has been contended very strenuously by Mr. Dutt, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10, 11, 12 and 17 that previously the appellant had prayed for the sale of the said houses by public auction and the learned trial Judge on two occasions having directed for sale of such dwelling houses by public auction, there was no occasion to vary the said order by making any subsequent application by the appellant. We are, however, unable to accept such contention of Mr. Dutt. We are, however, unable to accept such contention of Mr. Dutt. It appears to us that previously the co-sharers having major shares could not agree to jointly purchase the shares of other co-sharers by paying the price of such shares. It appears to us that subsequently the co-sharers having 38/56th share have been able to unite themselves to purchase the shares of the other co-sharers by paying the reasonable price so that the ancestral family dwelling houses can be retained by them. In our view, under the Partition Act, it is not always incumbent upon the Court to direct for sale of the dwelling house if partition by metes and bounds of such dwelling house is not feasible. In our view, the Court can always allow some of the co-sharers having a major share to buy up the shares of the other co-sharers in order to protect the family dwelling house from being sold in auction. It also appears to us that in the case of a family dwelling house, the court should appreciate the sentiments of the co-sharers for retaining the dwelling house and if it is possible to allow the share-holders having major share to retain such dwelling house by buying up the shares of the other co-sharers, the Court can and should make such effort so that the integrity of the dwelling house can be successfully maintained. ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, we allow this appeal and direct the Partition Commissioner to assess the present valuation of the buildings in question if necessary with the help of an assessor. The Partition Commissioner should make such assessment of valuation of the buildings in question within a period of three months from the date of putting the cost of assessment of such valuation for the present by the appellant and the learned trial Judge will consider the said report about the valuation of the properties in question and the objection of the parties to such valuation if any and finally determine the valuation of the properties. The appellant and the other co-sharers willing to retain the dwelling houses by purchasing the 18/56th share of the remaining co-sharers thereafter will be entitled to buy up the remaining 18/56th shares within three months from the final determination of the valuation of the properties by the learned trial Judge by depositing the value of 18/56th share of the properties. The appellant and the other co-sharers willing to retain the dwelling houses by purchasing the 18/56th share of the remaining co-sharers thereafter will be entitled to buy up the remaining 18/56th shares within three months from the final determination of the valuation of the properties by the learned trial Judge by depositing the value of 18/56th share of the properties. If the appellant and the said other co-sharers fail to deposit the value of such 18/56th shares of the properties in question within the said period of three months from the date of the final determination of the valuation by the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge will direct the Partition Commissioner to sell the said properties by public auction and in that event the co-sharers will also be entitled to bid in such public auction. The Partition Commissioner is directed to inform the appellant the cost for assessment of valuation of the properties in question within six weeks from today. Liberty is given to the appellant to mention the matter before the learned trial Judge in the said partition suit for any appropriate order and/or direction regarding the cost of valuation of the said property and/or the manner in which such valuation should be made. The learned trial Judge will also be entitled to direct for valuation of the properties in question by any other agency and not by the Partition Commissioner with or without the aid of any assessor if in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Judge feels that such valuation should be made by a different agency. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, but in the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. ( 10 ) K. M. YUSUF, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly. .