JUDGMENT : The petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1017/2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thrissur. The suit is for partition. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the children of one Kuzhanthavel Pillai and the late Chellammal. Defendant No.4 is the wife of the late Perumal Pillai. Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 are the children of late Perumal Pillai and defendant No.4. 2. The plaint property is 8 cents of land with a residential building thereon. The property originally belonged to one Palavasam Pillai, the father of the late Kuzhanthavel Pillai and the late Perumal Pillai. Palavasam Pillai died in 1936. The suit was instituted for partitioning the plaint schedule property into five equal shares. The Court below tried the suit and passed a preliminary decree. The preliminary decree reads thus:- “In the result, a preliminary decree is passed and the first plaintiff is entitled to 7/30 shares, the second plaintiff is entitled to 1/30 share, the third plaintiff is entitled to 1/30 share, the first defendant is entitled to 7/30 share, the second defendant is entitled to 7/30, the third defendant is entitled to 1/30 share and the defendants 4 to 9 are entitled to 6/30 shares. Defendants 10 and 11 are not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs are directed to file the final decree application within two months from today. The cost of the suit shall come out of the estate. “ 3. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No. 4378/2008 for passing of the final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. The Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner who informed that division of the property is not possible. Therefore, the Court ordered an auction among sharers. In the auction, the property was bid for an amount of Rs.48.5 Lakhs by the petitioner. The sale was conducted on 18.05.2010. 4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.4730/2010, stating that with the intention to defeat his interest after the sale, respondent No.1 inducted strangers in the building and sought an order removing the encroachments. In view of the filing of I.A.No.4730/2010, the petitioner did not deposit the sale amount. 5. The Final Decree Court, as per order dated 19.07.2010 in I.A.No.4730/2010, cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner and ordered resale among the sharers except the petitioner. In view of the filing of I.A.No.4730/2010, the petitioner did not deposit the sale amount. 5. The Final Decree Court, as per order dated 19.07.2010 in I.A.No.4730/2010, cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner and ordered resale among the sharers except the petitioner. The order of the Final Decree Court debarring the petitioner from participating in the resale is under challenge in this proceeding. 6. In cases where Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act have no application, if all the shareholders agree or the Court finds that the suit property is incapable of division in specie, it is for the court to devise the most appropriate and suitable method which is beneficial for all the shareholders for a just and fair division of the property. The court has the inherent power to devise the most suitable means. The Court can allot the property to one sharer with a direction to pay owelty to the other sharers. The Court can also direct a sale of the property among the sharers or public and divide the sale proceeds among the sharers, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. What is the best mode of division in such a case is to be decided by the court on the facts of that case. Whatever the course so adopted, it must be the most beneficial to all the sharers. It is not the interest of that shareholder in possession of the property to be looked into but the interest of all the shareholders [Vide : Sathi Lakshmanan K.C. and Another v. P.C.Mohandas and Others [ 2008 (4) KLT 401 ]. 7. The question to be considered is whether the inherent power of the Court to devise the best mode of division in a case stretches to the extent of enabling the Court to debar a co-sharer from participating in the auction. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if any purchaser fails to deposit the sale price within the time specified by the Court, the property shall be resold at his risk and loss resulting from the resale together with the costs. It is further submitted that preventing a sharer from participating in the auction would amount to denial of his substantive right as a sharer in the property. 10. It is further submitted that preventing a sharer from participating in the auction would amount to denial of his substantive right as a sharer in the property. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the power of the court in such circumstances extends to keeping away the defaulter even if he is a co-sharer in participating in the resale. 11. Rule 234 of the Civil Rules of Practice reads thus:- 234. Order for sale.-(1) When it is ordered in a partition suit that any property may be sold and proceeds divided, persons other than the co-owners shall not be permitted to bid in the sale, unless it appears to the Court that it is just and expedient to order otherwise. (2) The sale when the bid is not open to strangers shall be held in open Court on a day to which the case is adjourned for the purpose. The highest bid shall be accepted and the sale confirmed at once unless the sale is adjourned to some other date. (3) The co-sharer purchasing at the sale shall not ordinarily be obliged, to deposit the sale price in Court at once and the amount may be debited against him in the final adjustment of accounts in the case if the value of his share in the entire assets will be sufficient to cover the sale price. The Court shall record in the proceedings the date and time of sale, the amounts of the several bids, the name of the purchaser and whether the sale price has been deposited or allowed to be retained for future adjustment. The property so purchased shall be allotted in the final decree to the share of the purchaser at the value of the bid confirmed and accepted by the Court. (4) If any such purchaser on being so ordered, fails to deposit the sale price within the time allowed by the Court, the property shall be resold at his risk and the loss, if any, resulting from the resale together with the costs of the adjourned sale may be realised from him or debited against his share. (4) If any such purchaser on being so ordered, fails to deposit the sale price within the time allowed by the Court, the property shall be resold at his risk and the loss, if any, resulting from the resale together with the costs of the adjourned sale may be realised from him or debited against his share. (5) Where the Court considers that the interests of the parties will be better served by ordering a sale, open for the bid of the general public, the Court may appoint an auctioneer and shall fix his remuneration for the purpose, and may give the necessary directions relating to the place, time and manner of publication and conduct of the sale and shall direct any of the parties to deposit in Court any sum required for the publication and conduct of the sale. Properties or assets sold by the Court in the course of a partition suit shall be delivered over to the purchaser with the documents of title. The Court may also direct the co-sharers or the Receiver to execute a deed of conveyance to the purchaser at his cost and may, if necessary, appoint a Receiver for the purpose. 12. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 234 only mandates that if any purchaser on being so ordered, fails to deposit the sale price within the time specified by the Court, the property shall be resold at his risk and loss, if any, resulting from the resale together with the costs of the adjourned sale. The rule only enables the Court to order the realisation of the costs of the adjourned sale from the defaulted purchaser. The inherent power of the Court to devise the suitable modes of partition does not extent to debar a co-sharer from participating in the auction. Such an extreme step is tantamount to taking away the substantive right of a sharer over a property which is not the mandate of Rule 234(4) or the scope of the inherent power of the Court. 13. Therefore, the order impugned to the extent it debarred the petitioner from participating in the resale is liable to be set aside. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the second auction was conducted on 16.11.2010, and the property was auctioned in favour of respondent No.2. On 16.11.2010, as per an interim order, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the second auction was conducted on 16.11.2010, and the property was auctioned in favour of respondent No.2. On 16.11.2010, as per an interim order, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order. Therefore, the second sale conducted on 16.11.2010 is null and void. In the result, (a) The Original Petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order dated 19.07.2010 (Ext.P3) to the extent it debarred the petitioner from participating in the auction stands set aside. (c) The Final Decree Court is directed to proceed with the final decree application in accordance with law.