JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---The plaintiff and late Shri Ahmed Haji Joonas, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased", were the co-owners in equal share of the immovable property admeasuring 683.11 sq. mtr. situate at Plot Nos. 96 and 97. Sydenham Road having a total built up area of 2724 sq. mtr., hereinafter referred to as "the suit property". Ultimately the property was jointly owned between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 14. The plaintiff and defendants partitioned the property by a partition deed dated 20th November, 1990. The joint property is described in Schedule-A to the partition deed. Schedule-B describes the property which came to the share of the plaintiff. Schedule-C gives the details of the property which came to the share of defendant No. 2. Schedule-D gives the property which came to the share of defendant Nos. 3 to 14. After the partition, the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 and the predecessor in title of defendant Nos. 3 to 14 made a joint application for bifurcation of the property in individual names in accordance with the partition. The Municipal Corporation was requested to effect the change in assessment of the property so that the parties to whom the portions have been allotted can pay the taxes to the Corporation. This joint application was made on 24-11-90. The Municipal Corporation sent a reply on 8th July, 1991 accepting the partition. It was, however, pointed out that the property had already been attached and was to be put up for auction sale on account of outstanding property tax bill. The plaintiff as well as defendant Nos. 2 to 14 were informed that if the amount is not immediately paid the property would be put up for public auction without any further intimation. The amount of the composite bill was, however, bifurcated as desired by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 14. 2.Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 have submitted that they are prepared to pay their share of the outstanding, if the same is intimated to them by the Municipal Corporation. They have already deposited a sum of Rs. One lac in accordance with the ad-interim orders of this Court. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation has, however, stated that the amount due and payable on 31-3-97 was a huge amount of Rs. 10,58,659,90. They have already deposited a sum of Rs. One lac in accordance with the ad-interim orders of this Court. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation has, however, stated that the amount due and payable on 31-3-97 was a huge amount of Rs. 10,58,659,90. He further submitted that the property has to be put to auction as a composite unit as it is not possible to determine the rateable value and property taxes for individual units. I do not find much substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. Section 209-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, provides for bifurcation of the bills in the case of individual owners of the premises in a co-operative society. Section 209-B of the Act provides that the individual bills may be served on each of the joint owners of the property jointly owned for payment of his share of taxes. The amount of tax due from each joint owner shall be worked out with reference to the rateable value of that part of the property as is owned by him. 3.In view of the above, I find no impediment in the way of the Municipal Corporation for bifurcating the amounts due by the plaintiff defendant No. 2 and defendant Nos. 3 to 14. In my view, it would be wholly inequitable to burden the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to make payments for the default committed by defendant Nos. 3 to 14. 4.The Notice of Motion is, therefore, made absolute by passing the following order. (a) The plaintiff as well as defendant No. 2 undertake to pay the amount of their share of the outstanding on the amount being intimated to them by the Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff and defendant No. 2 shall make the payment within the period stipulated by the Municipal Corporation as and when the intimation is given. (b) Defendant Nos. 3 to 14 are directed to pay their share of the property taxes and any other outstanding within the period stipulated by the Municipal Corporation in intimation to be given to defendant Nos. 3 to 14. (c) In the event defendant Nos. 3 to 14 fail to make the payment as intimated to them within the specified period, the Municipal Corporation is at liberty to attach the portion of the property belonging to defendant Nos. 3 to 14. (c) In the event defendant Nos. 3 to 14 fail to make the payment as intimated to them within the specified period, the Municipal Corporation is at liberty to attach the portion of the property belonging to defendant Nos. 3 to 14 and proceed with recovery proceedings in accordance with law. (d) On the payments being made by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 14, the attachment already levied shall stand raised on the portion of the property for which the outstanding have been paid. Certified copy expedited. Rule made absolute.