Om Prakash Vaid v. Kaminibali & Others

1. Whether the Reporters oflocal papers YES may be allowed to see thejudgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES r - i

3. Whether theJudgmentshould be. YES reported in the Digest? MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT(OPEN COURT) % Heard counsel for the parties. This Court had on 26.10.2010 recorded a compromise whereby the parties mutually agreed to the respective shares in the suit property which is a 700 square yards plot located at Kirti Nagar. The plaintiff in the original suit subsequently filed ' H—I— I '■» -L gj Ex. Pet.40/2010 Page[1] 2010:DHC:10145 execution proceedingsfor giving effecttothecompromise.

2. The Courthad,inthe applications,movedinthe suiti.e.744/2009,directed the partiesto file affidavits indicating valuation of the property for the purpose of mter-se-biddmg on 26.07.2009. Partieshave apparentlyfiled affidavitseventhoughthe plaintiffOmPrakash Vaid's affidavit was notonfile,the courtrecorded the submissions made by his counselin the casethat the valuation ofthe property was? 10.[5] crores. The defendant/judgment debtor had valued the suit at? 8.[5] crores and filed affidavit. They also relied upon a valuation report which has been placed onthe record.This Courton 30.08.2010,inthe circumstances,fixed the valuation ofthe property at?10.[5] crores,byasubsequentorder,thetermsforinterse bidding werespeltout. ■■ N f^T On 15.11.2010the matter waslisted beforethe Registrar Generalincompliance withthe previous directions. At this stage apparently the decree holder introduced a prospective buyer who was willing to purchasethe property at?10.[5] crores and an earnest money amountof? 1.[5] crores was sought to be tendered by him. The Registrar General determined that such a third party could not be permitted to bid through decree holder/original plaintiff. In these circumstances the cases were placed before this Court on 19.11.2010,when it was clarified that only parties or their authorized representative(s)could be present atthe time ofthe bidding,in compliance with the previous order. Accordingly,the bidding was conducted by the Registrar General on 25.11.2010. The proceedings recorded by the Registrar General on that day reads as follows:- "Learned counselfor the judgment debtor hasfiled a pay order bearing No.047386 dated 13.11.2010for asum of 1,05,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank,Shivaji Marg,Kirti Nagar, New Delhi towards earnest money in terms oforder dated 18.10.2010passed by theHon'ble Court. Learned counselfor the decree holder states that the decree holder has not broughtthepay order towards earnestmoney as he does not wanttoparticipate in the bid and thejudgment debtor may be permitted to give the bid. The statement ofthe decree holder Mr. Om Prakash Vaid has been recordedseparately in this regard. The Ex.Pet.40/2010 Page 2 resei'vedprice is ^1,05,00,000/-. The originalsheetshowing the inter-se-bidding has been exhibited as attached with thefde. Learned counselfor both the parties who are present have signedthe biddingsheetin token ofits correctness. Thejudgmentdebtorhasdepositedasum of^1,05,00,000/- ofthe bidamoltbyLansofapayorderbearingNo.047386dated ofthe Registrar Generalofthis Court. Thejudgmentdebtor aie declaiedsuccessjul bidder atan amountof^1,05,00,000/-. Thejudgmentdebtorshalldepositafurtheramountof10%within seven days m termsofthe orderdated18.10.2010passedbytheHon'ble Court. Thejudgment debtor shallfurther deposit the balance amount i.e. the balance 0% ofthe bid amount withinfour monthsfrom today in 18102010passed by the Hon'ble Court. The parties shall be bound by the teims mentionedin the orderdated18.10.2010passedby theHon'ble Court. The bidprocess has been completed. The report beplaced before the Hon'ble Courton 30.11.2010,the date alreadyfixed."

4. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff/decree holder that the parties had in their compromise agreement-whieh is embodied inthe Courtorder-agreed to putthe suit property to public sale andthe procedure adoptedforinter-se-biddingisnotinconsonance withthe decree. The defendant/judgmentdebtor points outthatthesale hadto be undertaken by processofinterse-bidding,which also fulfills the objective ofthe Partition Act,which is to ensure that ifthe partiesareinapositionto buy outthe share orsharesofeitherofthem,thatopportunityshould c; befirstexplored andthereafteronlyfamily propertybeputto auction. --^4. This Courtis ofthe opinionthatthe plaintiffs objection to the procedure adopted atthis Stage is belated and groundless. The plaintiff had valued the property at 10.[5] crores, the defendant/J.D.onthe contrary had valued atRs.8.[5] crores. The valuation ofthe suitproperty by the plaintiff was Rs.50 lacs at the time offiling the suit. Ifthe plaintiffhad any reservation aboutthe procedure adopted the same should have been spelt out atthe earliest. On the other ■ hand,successive ordersofthe Courtdated20.07.2010,30.08.2010 and 18.10.2010 clarified that Ex.Pet.40/2010 Page 3 b the plaintiffhad no reservation aboutthe procedure ofinter se bidding. Besidesthe execution, proceedings impliedly are premised on the Court having to take steps to draw a final decree. Furthermore the Court cannot be oblivious of the mandate of Section-3 of the Partition Act which obliges itto first value the suit property and grantlibertytothe partiesto submit mter-sebids with aviewtoensurethattheassetisretained withinthefamily. Inthesecircumstances,the plaintiff/decree holder'sobjectionshaveto beand arerejected.

6. Having regard to the.above discussion,the bid is confirmed infavour ofJD Nos.[1] to 4 Ms.Kamini Bali, Ms. Saroj Sarkar, Mr. P.K.Vaid and Mr. V.K. Vaid in conformity with the court's previous orders dated 30.08.2010 and 18.10.2010. Learned counsel for the said parties '^-^tate that pay order issued by Punjab National Banlc, Kirti Nagar dated 30.11.2001 for the balance amount ofRs. 1.05 Crores is with him and would be tendered in the Court during the course of the day. In these circumstances, the Court hereby confirms the bids of the said judgmentdebtor,asrecorded bythe Registrar Generalon 19.11.2010.

7. I'he parties shall be present before the Sub-Registrar(West District) for execution of conveyance/sale deed for the 1/5"' share of the plaintiff in favour of the successful bidding partiesi.e. JD Nos.[1] to4(whose namesare mentioned above)on December,2010 at 11 AM. The plaintiff/decree holder Sh.Om Prakash Vaid shall execute the said documentand ensure that all necessary formalities in thatregard are completed by him at his end so that his right,title and interest is conveyed absolutely to the other parties. It is open to the plaintiff/decree holder Sh. Om Prakash Vaid to approach the court and withdraw the amounts ofRs.2.10 crores, after the said date. Execution No.40/2010 and lA Nos. 5277-78/2010 are disposed of in terms of the above directions.

8. It is submitted by the parties that in view ofthe confirmation ofthe bid,the observation Ex.Pet.40/2010 ^^§^4 of the Registrar General that the successful bidders are to deposit 80% of the total value is erroneous and redundant. Clarified accordingly. Mr. Om Prakash Vaid shall on or before he. executes the sale deed,hand overthe title deed ofthe suitproperty as well asthe originals/copies ofthe documents creating any encumbrance in respect ofthe suit property or in respect ofany loan or advance secured by him in this regard.

9. Execution Petition No.40/2010 and all pending applications in the disposed of suits are disposed ofinterms ofthe above directions. Order dasti under the signatures ofCourt Master.

S.RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 30,2010 mr