(1) THE short question that falls for determination of this Court in this suo motu review petition is whether application under Section 4 of the Partition Act can be pressed into service in execution proceedings arising out of a final decree for partition by one of the co-owners of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family against a stranger-purchaser of the share therein belonging to another erstwhile co-owner of the said dwelling house. This Court in a detailed judgment in which one of us was a party (Majmudar, J.) was pleased to observe on 18-9-1996 to the following effect: "THAT leaves out the question as to what final order should be passed in these proceedings. As we have upheld the applicability of Section 4 to the present proceedings the application filed by Respondent 1 is held maintainable and is required to be processed further. At this stage, on the aforesaid conclusion which we have reached, it would be necessary, as directed by the High Court, to remand the proceedings under Section 4 of the Act for being processed further. However, as the proceedings are very old and are lingering on since so many years in the Court, learned counsel for the respondents fairly suggested with a view to putting an end to this litigation that Respondent 1 who had moved the application under Section 4 of the Act in 1986, is prepared to pay Rs four lakhs to the appellant in full and final satisfaction of his claim as a donee of the share belonging to Smt Radha Rani. This amount was offered in the light of the valuation of the share of the appellant in the dwelling house as on 12-12-1986 when that application was moved. This offer was made by learned counsel for the respondents in consultation with Respondent 1 who was present in the Court. Dr Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was also agreeable to the said course being adopted. In our view this is a fair stand taken by both the parties to put an end to this litigation which was triggered off as early as on 5-9-1960. It is high time that it reaches its final terminus at least after 36 years. In our view this is a fair stand taken by both the parties to put an end to this litigation which was triggered off as early as on 5-9-1960. It is high time that it reaches its final terminus at least after 36 years. We, therefore, grant application of Respondent 1 under Section 4 of the Partition Act and direct him to pay Rs four lakhs to the appellant in full and final satisfaction of his claim and on payment of Rs four lakhs by Respondent 1 to the appellant, the appellant shall convey his right, title and interest in the suit house to Respondent 1 as per Section 4 of the Partition Act. Rupees four lakhs shall be paid by Respondent 1 to the appellant by instalments as under: Rupees two lakhs will be paid by Respondent 1 to the appellant on or before 31/12/1996. (2) THE balance of rupees two lakhs shall be paid by Respondent 1 to the appellant on or before 31/3/1997. IT is further directed that in case of default of any of these instalments, the amount remaining due on such default shall become payable by Respondent 1 to the appellant with 18% interest thereon from the date of this judgment till the payment of such defaulted amount. On payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs four lakhs and also subject to payment of interest on the requisite amount, in case of default, if any, as aforesaid, the right, title and interest of the appellant in the suit dwelling house shall stand transferred in full ownership of Respondent 1, the applicant of Section 4 of the Act and such share shall be treated to have been sold by the appellant to Respondent 1. On receipt of the aforesaid sale consideration, the appellant shall also execute necessary sale document in favour of Respondent 1. The cost of registration of such sale document shall be borne by Respondent 1. Thereupon, the application for execution moved by the appellant shall be treated as closed and the decretal claim of the appellant qua the judgment-debtors will be treated as fully satisfied. It is further directed that the parties concerned shall not alienate or encumber in any manner their respective shares in the joint family dwelling house till the present order is fully complied with. The parties concerned are directed to carry out the aforesaid directions punctually. It is further directed that the parties concerned shall not alienate or encumber in any manner their respective shares in the joint family dwelling house till the present order is fully complied with. The parties concerned are directed to carry out the aforesaid directions punctually. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case." (3) SUBSEQUENTLY, however, in the review proceedings an affidavit was filed recording therein that the suggestion to put a sum of Rs four lakhs as recorded in the order cannot be termed to be a consent order since the real valuation of the building is in no way comparable to the astronomical figure stated to have been agreed in court. In order, however, to avoid any further complication and difficulties in the matter, this Court by an order dated 12/7/1999 directed the parties to appear before this Court in person and it is in this context on 24/8/1999 this Court passed the following order: "UPON hearing submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent 1 party-in-person, we deem it fit to call for a report from the IInd Subordinate Judge, Howrah as regards the valuation of the premises in question. The IInd Subordinate Judge, Howrah shall give an opportunity of hearing to the parties and will permit them to adduce evidence, documentary or otherwise, in connection with the valuation of the premises in question. Be it noted that the valuation shall be on the date of application under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 12/12/1986 and not of any other date. It is clarified that no objection in regard to valuation will be entertained and the valuation as on 12/12/1986 may be offered by way of a report to this Court on or before 22/11/1999. The report on valuation to be submitted by IInd Subordinate Judge, Howrah, shall be final and binding on the parties so far as Section 4 application is concerned. Let this matter be placed for further orders before this Bench on 30/11/1999. To be treated as part-heard." (4) IN terms of the order of this Court the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah in early November 1999 sent his report wherein it has been recorded as follows: "... Let this matter be placed for further orders before this Bench on 30/11/1999. To be treated as part-heard." (4) IN terms of the order of this Court the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah in early November 1999 sent his report wherein it has been recorded as follows: "... logical and convincing evidence to come to a legitimate conclusion that the valuation of the disputed plot cannot be more than 8000 (eight thousand only) per cattah, since the contemporaneous deed Ext. 1 suggests such valuation of the property, and accordingly on the basis of the documents relied on by the petitioner, I feel no hesitation to hold that the valuation of the property in question i.e. (4 cattah 9 chitaka 36 sq ft) would be Rs 36,900 (thirty-six thousand nine hundred only) as on 12/12/1986." (5) IN terms of our earlier order dated 24/8/1999, the valuation as reported by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah, is to be treated as final and binding on both the sides. (6) IN view of the valuation as above, the matter was placed in the list and the parties were heard. Incidentally it may be mentioned, the petitioner at an earlier stage of the proceedings had in fact offered a sum of Rs 1 lakh and in the wake of such an offer and by reason of the long lapse of time, we direct payment of Rs 1 lakh (one lakh) to the stranger-purchaser in exercise of right of pre-emption pursuant to the Section 4 application. Respondent 1 in person who is present in court is directed to pay Rs 37,000 (Rupees thirty-seven thousand only) to the appellant out of Rs 1 lakh, during the course of the day. The balance amount of Rs 63,000 (Rupees sixty-three thousand only) shall be deposited by Respondent 1 in the trial court within a period of nine months from today. In the event, however, the balance sum of Rs 63,000 (Rupees sixty-three thousand only) is not paid within the stipulated period of nine months as above, the application of Respondent 1 under Section 4 of the Partition Act shall stand dismissed and the defendant stranger-purchaser will be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. In the event of default of payment, however, the amount of money paid to the stranger-purchaser shall be refunded to Respondent 1 herein. In the event of default of payment, however, the amount of money paid to the stranger-purchaser shall be refunded to Respondent 1 herein. It is clarified that Respondent 1 would be at liberty to deposit the balance amount in the trial court either in lump sum or by instalments as and when it is possible but the outer limit fixed by us would in no case go beyond nine months from today. In the event of the money being so deposited, in terms of the present order, the application under Section 4 of the Act filed by Respondent 1 will stand allowed and the stranger-purchaser will execute all necessary conveyance in favour of the respondent herein within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the entire sum in terms of the present order. As and when the balance amount is deposited in the trial court, the Registrar, Civil Court concerned is directed to intimate the same within a period of seven days to the stranger-purchaser, the appellant herein from the date of deposit of such money. The review application is allowed accordingly and the order dated 18/9/1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3732 of 1991 will stand modified to the extent indicated above. No costs.