A partition court cannot permit private purchase where the appellate decree mandates auction.

The petitioner had obtained a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 149 of 2001.

In subsequent final decree proceedings, the First Appellate Court, in R.A. No. 16 of 2018, set aside an earlier final decree and directed that the suit properties be valued by an expert commissioner, sold by auction, and the proceeds distributed among the shareholders

The petitioner then applied under Section 2 of the Partition Act to purchase the other shareholders’ shares.

The FDP Court rejected the application, finding that the appellate direction required an auction sale and did not permit a direct purchase.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution

The Court considered Section 2 of the Partition Act, under which the petitioner sought to purchase the other shareholders’ shares, and the First Appellate Court’s operative direction, made in an appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to sell the suit properties by auction and distribute the proceeds

The Court treated that operative direction as binding on the FDP Court; it identified no precedent or separate statutory test governing the application

The First Appellate Court’s order expressly directed valuation, auction sale, and distribution of the sale proceeds among the shareholders.

It contained no reservation allowing any party to purchase the other shareholders’ shares directly.

Because the petitioner’s application sought a direct purchase without an auction, granting it would have been inconsistent with the appellate mandate.

The FDP Court therefore correctly rejected the application, and the High Court found no error warranting supervisory interference

It declined to interfere with the FDP Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition