Roopa Khanna v. Anil Varma & Anr

1. The suits were argued at length not only for the purpose of framing of issues but on the two applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In fact, this Court also more or less CS(OS) 255412010 page lof 6 2016:DHC:8482 completed dictating the order of dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in CS(OS) No.2554/2010 being I.A. No. 13013/2015 besides considering the requirement of framing of issues in both the suits inasmuch as the suits were listed for framing of issues today.

2. I am happy to note that counsel for the parties have in terms of admitted facts in the present cases and the pleadings of the two suits have agreed and accordingly both the suits are disposed of in terms of the following consent order:-

(i) Plaintiff in CS(OS) No.2554/2010 namely Smt. Roopa Khanna, and who is the sister of the two defendants in this suit being her two brothers Sh. Anil Varma and Sh. Sunil Varma (since deceased now represented by his legal heirs), is declared as owner of 1/311 share in the first floor flat bearing no.3/24, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property) as also of the additional 113rd share out of the 2/3rd share of the mother in the suit property. Plaintiff therefore is declared to be the owner of 5/9th share in the suit property.

(ii) Defendant nos-1 and 2 in CS(OS) No.2554/2010, and who are the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 116/2011, are declared to be the owner of CS(OS) 255412010 page 2of[6] remaining 419th share with the branch of Sh. Sunil Varma (since deceased and represented by legal heirs) will be the owner of 219th share in the property and Sh. Anil Varma will be the owner of 219th share in the suit property.

(iii) A preliminary decree is accordingly passed in CS(OS)

No. 116/2011 in terms of the shares of Sint. Roopa Khanna being 5191h share and Sh. Anil Varma having 2/91h share and the estate of Sh. Sunil Varma having 2191h share of the property being the first floor of 3/24, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi.

3. CS(OS) No.2554/20 10 will stand accordingly decreed not only for the declaration as sought by the plaintiff with respect to her share which has been agreed to be 5/9th share but the plaintiff will also be first offered a right of pre-emption of 2/9 share of Sh. Anil Varma and 2191h share of estate of Sh. Sunil Varma, of course, as per the market value as on the date when the total th share of suit property of defendants in CS(OS) No.2554/2010 is sold or part of it is to be sold or either of the shares is to be sold ie in case, either of Sh. Anil Varma or any other legal heir of Sh. Sunil Varma want to sell the shares which have fallen to them, the first right of CS(OS) 255412010 page 3of[6] pre-emption will be of the sister Sint. Roopa Khanna. Detailed modalities of terms including time of payment of price by Sint. Roopa Khanna to Sh. Anil Varma and legal heirs of late Sb. Sunil Varma need to be fixed today inasmuch as that aspect will arise on the date when Sh. Anil Varma or legal heirs of late Sh. Sunil Varma want to sell their respective shares in the suit property. The method and manner of payment of sale consideration by Sint. Roopa Khanna to either Sh. Anil Varma and/or the legal heirs of late Sh. Sunil Varma will be an aspect which will either be mutually decided or will be in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Pre-Emption Act as applicable to Delhi though strictly the said Act does not apply to the premises in question inasmuch as the said Act only applies to the specific areas in the walled city of the Delhi as stated in the said Act.

4. In view of the passing of the preliminary decree as stated above and giving a right of pre-emption to the sister Sint. Roopa Khanna under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') an injunction order follows that neither Sh. Anil Vanua nor the legal heirs of deceased Sb. Sunil Varma will sell their shares in the suit property unless first offering their shares to Suit. Roopa Khanna pursuant to Sint. CS(OS) 255412010 page 4of[6].S)/ Roopa Khanna's right of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Act.

5. Accordingly, both the suits are disposed of firstly by giving the necessary declaration and injunctions to Smt. Roopa Khanna in terms of the prayer clauses of Smt. Roopa Khanna in CS(OS) No.2554/20 10, and passing a preliminary decree in CS(OS) 116/2011 as stated above.

6. Simultaneously it is observed that if for some reason Sint. Roopa Khanna fails to exercise her rights of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Act, at that stage, the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 116/2011 can revive their suit for taking further steps in terms of the preliminary decree passed today declaring the shares of the parties.

7. It is also further agreed, and which will form part of the decree to be drawn up by this Court, that, for the shares of Sh. Anil Varma and the share falling to the estate of Sh. Sunil Varma by Smt. Roopa Khanna will exercise her rights and obligations of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Act within nine months from today's date with the fact that Smt. Roopa Khanna within a period of three months from today will make an offer in writing to the defendants or their counsel appearing in the suits today in this Court as to the price at which Sint. Roopa Khanna wants to purchase the CS(OS) 255412010 4_11^ 219th[1] share of Sh. Anil Varma and 219th share falling to the estate of late Sh. Sunil Varma. On receiving the offer by the defendants to the extent of their shares, the defendants will give their counter offer with further clarification that none of the parties are entitled to give any offer or counter offer which is below the circle rates fixed by the competent authority for the area in which the suit property is situated.

8. Any other issue with respect to exercise, valid exercise, failing loato exercise etc of the pre-emption right will be subject matter of appropriate independent proceedings.

9. Suits are accordingly disposed of and a decree be drawn up by granting the reliefs of declarations and injunctions to the plaintiff in CS(OS) No.2554/20 10 and passing a preliminary decree in favour of the parties in terms of the shares as stated above in CS(OS) No. 116/2011. Parties are left to bear their own costs. V" VLV VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 179 2016 Ne