JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. By means of this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the judgment dated 29.01.2018 delivered in Title Appeal No.2 of 2017 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar has been challenged. 3. The respondent No.1, namely Khitish Chandra Nandi filed the suit for partition of the joint property being Title Suit (P) No.05 of 2010. It has been asserted by the plaintiff-respondents that the suit land measuring 0.19 acre recorded in the Jote No.263 under Khatian No.284, old plot No607 corresponding to new plot No.6807 was originally owned by Saibalini Dhar and Byomkesh Dhar. They purchased the suit land by dint of the registered sale deed dated 28.05.1969. When there was an attempt to evict the plaintiff-respondents from the suit land, Saibalaini Dhar and Byomkesh Dhar instituted a suit against the defendant-appellants for declaration of right, title, interest with recovery of possession. That suit was registered as T.S.10 of 1979. The suit was decreed in favour of Saibalini Dhar and Byomkesh Dhar. Both the appellate courts upheld that judgment. Saibalini Dhar and her brother-in-law Byomkesh Dhar had made an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff-respondents and took Rs.1000/- as advance. After death of Saibalini Dhar and Byomkesh Dhar, the proforma defendant-respondents had sold out 0.003 acre on consideration of Rs.90,000/-. By virtue of the purchase, the plaintiff-respondents had stepped in the shoes of the proforma defendant-respondents and become a co-sharer. As the other defendant-appellants were creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondents in respect of his share amounting to 0.033 acres, he requested for partition and segregation of share by metes and bounds, but that request was turned down and as consequence, the suit was instituted for partition and separation of his share measuring 0.033 acres of land as estimated. 4. In the written statement, the defendant-appellants have specifically denied all the averments of the plaint and submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents in order to frustrate the decree passed in Title Suit No.10 of 1979. It was further submitted by the answering defendant-appellants that in a bid to prevent the execution of the decree passed in T.S.10 of 1979, the plaintiff-respondents entered into legal battle with the defendant-appellants. 5. It was further submitted by the answering defendant-appellants that in a bid to prevent the execution of the decree passed in T.S.10 of 1979, the plaintiff-respondents entered into legal battle with the defendant-appellants. 5. During pendency of the execution proceeding being Exe.(T)18 of 2001, there had been endeavours to stall the execution by raising objection. Even when the objection fell through, the action was taken to the Gauhati High Court as it has the territorial jurisdiction at that point of time by filing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP), but that CRP was also dismissed. 6. After recording the evidence, the trial court, on their evaluation passed the preliminary decree with a direction to partition the suit land according to the share where the share of the plaintiff-respondents was measured at 0.003 acres has been affirmed. Against the trial court’s judgment dated 19.09.2016, an appeal was filed under Section 96 of the CPC being Title Appeal No.02 of 2017 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2018 by affirming the judgment of the trial court [the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura]. 7. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has strenuously argued that if the partition is allowed, the portion that would fall to the shareholders will be so small, it would lose its intrinsic worth and as such, the decree as passed by the trial court is not sustainable. In this respect, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has referred to Sections 2 & 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 which provide that the court has the power to order sale instead of division. 8. From a bare reading of those provisions, it appears that the suit for partition, if instituted prior to the commencement of the said Act, a decree for partition might have been made. 8. From a bare reading of those provisions, it appears that the suit for partition, if instituted prior to the commencement of the said Act, a decree for partition might have been made. It is noted by the court that by reason of nature of the property to which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders therein, or of any other special circumstance, a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the shareholders [co-parceners], the court may, if it thinks fit, on the request of any of such shareholders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds. 9. On such request being made, it has been further provided under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 that the Court can direct a sale, when any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation of the share or shares of the party or parties asking for a sale, the court shall order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner as it may think fit and offer to sell the same to such shareholder at the price so ascertained, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf. 10. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel to buttress his contention has referred a decision of the apex court in Badri Narain Prasad Choudhury vs. Nil Ratan Sarkar, reported in (1978) 3 SCC 30 , where the apex court has observed as under: “19. The suit property, being incapable of division in specie, there is no alternative but to resort to the process called Owelty, according to which the rights and interests of the parties in the property will be separated, only by allowing one of them to retain the whole of the suit property on payment of just compensation to the other. As rightly pointed out by K. Subba Rao, C. J. (speaking for a Division Bench of Andhra High Court in R. Ramaprasada Rao vs. R. Subbaramaiah : AIR 1958 AP 647 ), in cases not covered by Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, the power of the Court to partition property by any equitable method is not affected by the said Act.” 11. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has further argued that since it is apparent on the face of records that the land cannot be divided keeping the intrinsic worth of the share, the court ought to have taken the procedure as laid in Sections 2 & 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 for division. 12. This Court is not at all in agreement with such submission made by Mr. Deb, learned counsel inasmuch as, when a preliminary decree has been issued, the co-parceners can determine the mode whether they will go for the division or someone of them of many of them or many of them would purchase the one part of the share or the other and accordingly, after such division or after the sale is approved duly, any one of them file the application before the court for passing the final decree. But if so appears that the co-sharers are not in a position to settle the matter amongst themselves, one of the co-sharer may apply for the final decree or the many may record the difficulties in partitioning the properties for urging the trial court to adopt the procedure as laid down in Sections 2 & 3 of the Partition Act, but at this stage, the court shall not and cannot interfere in the process. It is the turn of the co-parceners to get the partition finalized having due regard to the preliminary decree. In view of this, this court does not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed subject to what has been observed above. Draw the decree accordingly.