Delhi High Court
M/S Prime Time India Ltd. vs Somnath Vij And Ors on 6 July, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 06.07.2017
+ CS (OS) 554/2004
M/S PRIME TIME INDIA LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Versus
SOMNATH VIJ AND ORS ..... Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff : Mr Anil Airi, Senior Advocate with Mr Ravi
Krishan Chandna, Mr Aman Madan, Ms Sadhana
Sharma, Ms. Bindiya Logawney and Ms Naveli
Kiran.
For the Defendants : Mr. Baldev Krishan for D-1.
Mr. Anupam Srivastav and Mr. Shikhar Sareen
for D-2.
Mr. Keshav Dayal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Astha
Nigam, Mr. Nitin Dayal, Mr. Rajat Gava and Ms.
Jayati Parasher for D-3 & 4A.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
IA Nos.1541/2005, 843/2006 & 4476/2014
1. IA no.1541/2005 is an application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter 'the CPC') by the plaintiff,
defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 praying that a decree be passed in terms
of the compromise arrived at between the said parties.
2. The above captioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a decree
of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.12.2003 directing
Mr Som Nath Vij, Mrs Anjali Sarin, Mrs Ambica Vij being defendant
nos.1 to 3 and Mr Ashwani Kapoor (original defendant no.4, since
deceased and now represented by his legal heirs), respectively to perform
their obligations under the said agreement and execute a registered sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the defendants' undivided
72% share in property bearing no. 32, Golf Links, New Delhi (hereafter
'the suit property').
3. It is stated that late Smt. Kailash Kapoor - the mother of defendant
nos. 2 and 3, late Ashwani Kapoor (original defendant no.4) and Mr Ashok
Kapoor - was the owner of the suit property. Smt. Kailash Kapoor expired
on 31.10.1992 leaving behind a Will wherein, the suit property was
bequeathed to Mr Ashok Kapoor and original defendant no.4, late Ashwani
Kapoor. However, a family settlement was arrived at whereby original
defendant no.4 (late Ashwani Kapoor), Mr Ashok Kapoor and Mr Y.P.R.
Kapoor (father of defendant nos.2 and 3, original defendant no.4 and Mr
Ashok Kapoor), were given 1/3rd share each in the suit property.
4. Mr Y.P.R. Kapoor expired on 01.03.1993. Thereafter, defendant
no.3 filed a suit (CS(OS) 2187/1993) challenging the family settlement and
for partition of the suit property. Defendant no.2 was also a party to the
said suit. During the pendency of the partition suit, defendant nos.2 and 3,
original defendant no.4 as well as Mr Ashok Kapoor entered into an
arbitration agreement and appointed defendant no.1 as an arbitrator to
decide their respective shares in the suit property and also authorised him
to sell the suit property and distribute the sale proceeds amongst them.
5. Defendant no.1 rendered an award dated 28.10.2002, wherein it was
held that the suit property cannot be divided by metes and bounds and the
share in the suit property was determined as follows :-
Legal Heir Share (%)
(original defendant
no.4)
6. Thereafter, defendant nos.2 and 3 and original defendant no.4 along
with Mr Ashok Kapoor entered into a memo of agreement dated
10.12.2002 wherein they empowered defendant no.1 to act as per the terms
of the arbitral award. An application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC
was also filed in the Court (in CS(OS) 2187/1993) to take the compromise
on record. The decree sheet dated 13.12.2002 was drawn accordingly.
7. In the meanwhile, Mr Ashok Kapoor entered into an agreement
dated 02.07.2002 with the plaintiff to sell his 1/3rd share in the suit property
for a sum of ₹1.25 crores. The entire consideration was paid by the plaintiff
towards such sale. On being aware of the arbitral award and the decree
passed in CS(OS) 2187/1993, the plaintiff filed a suit (CS(OS) 254/2003)
for specific performance of the agreement dated 02.07.2002. In the said
suit, defendant nos.1 and 3 and Mr Ashok Kapoor relied upon the terms of
the decree dated 13.12.2002 passed in CS(OS) 2187/1993 and the arbitral
award dated 28.10.2002.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell dated
24.12.2003 with defendant no.1 for sale of 72% share of defendant nos.2
and 3 and original defendant no.4 in the suit property for a sum of ₹3.21
crores. The agreement dated 24.12.2003 was also signed by Mr Ashok
Kapoor as a confirming party since it was agreed between him and the
plaintiff that the consideration paid to him under the agreement dated
02.07.2002 shall be treated as the consideration for his 28% share in the
suit property. It is claimed that the plaintiff paid a sum of ₹45 lacs at the
time of execution of the agreement dated 24.12.2003. Further, ₹10 lacs was
paid for conversion of the suit property from leasehold to freehold.
9. It is claimed that as per the terms of the agreement to sell dated
24.12.2003, the parties to the agreement agreed that within seven days of
execution of the said agreement, the defendants would apply to Court for
release of keys of the part of the first floor of the suit property vacated by
the tenant. Additionally, it was agreed that the defendants would also file
an application for settlement of the disputes in CS(OS) 254/2003 captioned
as 'Prime Time India Ltd v Ashok Kapoor and Ors'. Pursuant to the said
agreement dated 24.12.2003, applications were filed, however, later, the
applications were sought to be withdrawn by the defendants, inter alia, on
the basis that the agreement to sell dated 24.12.2003 was not definitive in
nature.
10. In the present suit, by an order dated 27.05.2004, an ad-interim
injunction was granted whereby the parties were directed to maintain status
quo with regard to the title and possession pertaining to the undivided 72 %
share in the suit property.
11. Thereafter, the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 filed the
present application (IA no.1541/2005) setting out the terms of the
compromise arrived at between defendant no.3 as also Mr Ashok Kapoor
with the plaintiff. The relevant extract of the present application is set out
below:-
"4. That the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have
accordingly settled the dispute concerning the share
of the defendant No.3 i.e. 22% (twenty two percent)
in the suit property and concerning 28% share of Mr.
Ashok Kapoor in the said property, the subject
matter of Suit No. 254 of 2002, on the following
terms conditions:
(a) The defendant No.3 has agreed to transfer her share
in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff to the
extent of 22% share with all her rights, title and
interest therein.
(b) That the plaintiff has agreed to release to the
defendant No.3 and defendant no.3 has agreed to
accept her share of consideration in pursuance of the
settlement of all her disputes with regard to her 22%
share and the defendant No.1 has no objection to
such settlement between the plaintiff and the
defendant No.3.
(c) That the plaintiff shall release a further sum of
Rs.86,00,000/- (Rupees eighty six lakhs only) by
way of Bank Draft in favour of the defendant No.3
in pursuance of the agreement dated 24.12.2003 as
full and final payment towards the share of the
defendant No.3 at the time of recording of the above
terms of settlement by this Hon'ble Court in the
above suit and in suit no. 254 of 2002. A photo copy
of the Bank Draft Bearing No. 007788 dated 23/2/05
issued by United Bank of India, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi favour the defendant No.3 is attached
hereto.
(d) That after receiving the above said amounts in
respect of her 22% share in the suit property the
defendant No.3 shall be left with no right, title and
interest in the suit property and the same shall vest
with the plaintiff. The plaintiff agrees that the
defendant No.3 shall not be liable for any sort of
expenses for plaintiff's affecting its transfer in their
own name to the extent of 22% share in the suit
property. The defendant no.1 and 3 have no
objection if the possession of the part of the First
Floor of the property, keys of which are presently
with the Hon'ble Court, be handed over to the
Plaintiff.
(e) The defendant No.1 and 3 agree and undertake to
execute the conveyance deed/sale deed and all such
documents such as General power of Attorney,
Special Power of Attorney, affidavits, etc. in favour
of the plaintiff to the extent of 22% share of the
defendant No.3 and w.r.t. 28% of Mr Ashok Kapoor,
of whom the defendant no.1 is registered Power of
Attorney.
(f) The defendant No.1 and 3 agree and undertake not
to create any impediment and shall assist and sign
and execute all such documents as may be required
by the plaintiff for transfer of all the rights, title and
interest in the suit property to the extent of 22%
share of the defendant No.3 and 28% share of Mr.
Ashok Kapoor, on being called upon by the plaintiff
and without any demur or protest.
(g) That similarly the defendant no.1 shall make
statement and withdraw all their objections in Suit
No. 254 of 2002 and decree in terms of settlement
shall be passed for 28% share of Mr. Ashok Kapoor.
5. The defendants No.1 and 3 above named admit the
claim of the plaintiff having been settled to the extent
of 22% without any further liability and have no
objection if a decree for specific performance as
being prayed for by the plaintiff is passed in terms of
the settlement stated herein above."
12. IA no.1541/2005 has been signed by the plaintiff, defendant no.1
and Mr K.C. Vij, father-in-law and the constituted attorney holder of
defendant no.3. The application is supported by the affidavits of the said
persons.
13. Almost simultaneous to filing IA no.1541/2005, Mr Ashok Kapoor,
the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no. 3 also filed a similar
application being IA 1515/2005 in CS(OS) 254/2003. It is relevant to note
that the said application expressly recorded that Mrs Ambica Vij, (who was
arrayed as defendant no.5 in the said suit) had agreed to settle all disputes
with the plaintiff with respect to her 22% share in the suit property. Mr
Ashok Kapoor, Mrs Ambica Vij (defendant no.3) and Mr Som Nath Vij
(defendant no.1) who were arrayed as defendant nos.1, 5 and 7 respectively
in the said suit also agreed to withdraw all allegations and objections in
their written statement(s). The relevant terms of the said application were
noted by the Court in the order dated 13.07.2016 whereby the said suit was
decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against Mr Ashok Kapoor. The
relevant extract of the said order has been reproduced below:-
"36. By this application-
(i) defendant No.1 confirmed that he had received the
entire sale consideration in terms of agreement to
sell dated 2nd July, 2002 of Rs.1.25 crores from the
plaintiff;
(ii) it was agreed that the share of the defendant No.1
in the property as mentioned in the agreement to
sell dated 2nd July, 2002 be read as 28% instead of
1/3rd and the sale consideration received be treated
in lieu of the said 28% share in the property;
(iii) the defendants No. 1 Mr. Ashok Kapoor, 5 Mrs.
Ambica Vij and 7 Mr. Som Nath Vij withdrew all
the allegations and objections in their written
statement/s;
(iv) the defendant No.5 Mrs. Ambica Vij agreed to
settle all her disputes with the plaintiff with respect
to her 22% share in the property and to file a
compromise in connected suit CS(OS)
No.554/2004;
(v) the defendants No.1,5 and 7 gave their no
objection to hand over physical possession of part
of the first floor in custodia legis to the plaintiff;
(vi) the defendants No.1, 5 and 7 agreed to execute
documents for transfer of 28% share of the
defendant No.1 Mr. Ashok Kapoor and 22% share
of the defendant No.5 Mrs. Ambica Vij (which had
also been agreed to be sold by the defendant No.5
to the plaintiff and for specific performance of
which connected CS(OS) No.254/2003 is
pending);
(vii) the defendants No.1, 5 and 7 agreed not to create
any impediment to the transfer of title of the
property in favour of the plaintiff;
(viii) the defendant No.7 Mr. Som Nath Vij confirmed
that power of attorney executed by defendant No.1
Mr. Ashok Kapoor in his favour was subsisting;
(ix) the plaintiff and defendant No.1, 5 and 7 sought
recording of the said compromise."
14. Subsequent to the filing of IA no.1541/2005, defendant nos.1 and 3
filed another application (IA no.843/2006) seeking to withdraw the
settlement arrived at between the parties (as recorded in IA no.1541/2005)
on various grounds including concealment of material facts by the plaintiff
(most of which were already pleaded in the written statement filed by
defendant nos.1 and 3). The said application was filed by defendant no. 1
for and on behalf of defendant no.3. A similar application (IA
no.818/2006) was also filed in CS(OS) 254/2003 by Mr Ashok Kapoor,
which was dismissed by the Court on 13.12.2012.
15. Thereafter, by an order dated 10.07.2006, the said defendants were
directed to deposit the entire consideration received from the plaintiff in
view of the challenge raised, by filing of the application, IA no.843/2006.
16. Despite the order passed on 10.07.2006, defendant no.3 continued to
utilise the funds received from the plaintiff and the amount of ₹86 lacs was
deposited belatedly on 19.09.2011.
17. Subsequently, defendant no.3 also filed IA no.4476/2014 inter alia
seeking that the compromise agreement, that is, IA no.1541/2005 be
rejected. Defendant no.3 inter alia claimed that defendant no.1 had no
authority to enter into any compromise with the plaintiff and had misled
Mr K.C. Vij, father-in-law of defendant no.3 (who is also her power of
attorney holder), into believing that IA no.1541/2005 and IA no.1515/2005
in CS(OS) 254/2003 were being entered into as a step towards
implementing the compromise agreement dated 24.12.2003. It was also
contended that IA no.1541/2005 is an attempt to secure a sale of the shares
of the co-owners by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no.1 and his
lawyer, Mr Baldev Krishnan, who was also the counsel of defendant no.3
and Mr Ashok Kapoor.
18. It is an admitted position that defendant no.3 had received an amount
of ₹86 lacs from the plaintiff as evident from the statement of Mr K.C. Vij,
the constituted attorney of defendant no.3, recorded on 25.02.2005 as also
the affidavit affirmed by defendant no.3 on 15.05.2007 in compliance with
order dated 15.03.2007. There is also no dispute that defendant no.1 had
also received ₹55 lacs on behalf of the co-owners.
19. A Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the application, IA
no.1515/2005 filed in suit CS(OS) 254/2003 on 13.07.2016 and decreed
the said suit in terms of the compromise as recorded in IA no.1515/2005.
In normal course, the said application, IA no.1515/2005 in CS(OS)
254/2003 having been allowed by this Court, no further challenge to the
compromise as recorded in the present application, IA no.1541/2005 could
be entertained and defendant no. 3 (arrayed as defendant no. 5 in CS(OS)
254/2003) had confirmed the compromise as recorded in IA no.1541/2005.
However, the Court while allowing the said application (IA no.1515/2005)
had specifically observed that nothing observed therein would come in the
way of this Court in considering the matter in this suit and shall not
influence such consideration.
20. Having noted the above, this Court cannot ignore the fact that Mr
K.C. Vij as attorney holder of Mrs Ambica Vij (defendant no.3) had
admittedly signed the application (IA no.1515/2005 in CS (OS) 254/2003)
whereby her compromise as indicated in the present application (IA
no.1541/2005) was reaffirmed by her.
21. Having stated the above, this Court may now examine the opposition
by Mrs Ambica Vij, defendant no.3 to the present application (IA
no.1541/2005). As indicated above, defendant no.3's opposition to the
present application is articulated in IA no.843/2006 and IA no.4476/2014.
22. In the said application (IA no.843/2006), the applicants (defendant
no.1 and defendant no.3) have referred to the multiple actions instituted by
parties in respect of the suit property. In paragraph 4, it is averred that the
agreement to sell dated 24.12.2003 (the specific performance of which is
sought in the present suit) had never reached finality. It is further averred
that the defendants would be able to explain their position only if the
original of the agreement dated 24.12.2003 is filed.
23. In paragraph 6 of the said application (IA no.843/2006), defendant
no.3 has conceded that IA no.1541/2005 has been filed as defendant no.3
was "fed up with the longevity of the pendency of various suits in respect of
the suit property". It is relevant to point out that the said application has
been filed by defendant no.1, Mr Som Nath Vij, for self and on behalf of
defendant no.3. It is claimed that defendant no.1 had signed IA
no.1541/2005 "due to inadvertence". It is claimed that IA no.1541/2005
and the compromise recorded therein ought to be rejected for various
reasons, which are summarized below:-
i. The total consideration independently agreed between plaintiff and
defendant no.3 has neither been finalized nor has been paid to the
satisfaction of defendant no.3.
ii. Conduct of the representative of plaintiff, Mr Jha disentitles him
from claiming discretionary relief as the plaintiff has encroached upon the
first floor of the suit property by flouting orders of this Court.
iii. The share of Mr Ashok Kapoor in CS(OS) no. 254/2003 has not
been finalized.
iv. The terms of the compromise have not been finalized, particularly,
the consideration payable to defendant no.3 and the other co-owners,
namely, Mr Ashwani Kapoor (since deceased) and Mrs. Anjali Sarin are
not agreeable to any sort of compromise.
v. There is no lawful agreement between the parties.
vi. The application is ambiguous as the total amount of consideration is
uncertain.
24. Defendant no.3 has filed yet another application (IA no.4476/2014)
to oppose the recording of the compromise. The grounds as urged in the
said application for opposing the compromise are summarized as under:-
i) Defendant no.1 was not entitled to enter into an agreement or sell a
part of the suit property;
ii) Defendant no.1 had no authority to enter into any compromise;
iii) The application filed (IA no.1541/2005) is an attempt to play a fraud
upon the Court.
iv) The constituted attorney of defendant no.3 (that is, Mr K.C. Vij)
was misled by defendant no.1 regarding the nature of compromise
agreements as reflected in the present application as well as in IA No.
1515/2005 in CS (OS) 254/2003. It is alleged that Mr K.C. Vij was misled
into believing that the compromise agreement dated 24.12.2003 (which is
the subject matter of dispute in the present suit) was being implemented
and the applications in question were a step towards implementing the
same.
v) The plaintiff had fraudulently admitted to illegally obtaining the
possession of the entire suit property by seeking keys of the vacant first
floor which was lying with the Registry of this Court.
25. Defendant no.3 has also alleged that the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and
the lawyer, Baldev Krishan, had colluded to present a compromise relating
to sale of part of the suit property which was never consented to by
defendant no.3. It is further stated that defendant no.1 with a view to cover
their tracks had filed applications for withdrawal of the compromise
recorded in the present application being IA no.1541/2005 (IA
no.818/2006 in CS(OS) 254/2003 and IA no.843/2006 in the present suit).
26. Although it was urged on behalf of the applicant (defendant no.3)
that the compromise is fraudulent, this Court is unable to appreciate or
accept the said contention. Indisputably, the applicant (defendant no.3) had
full knowledge of the pending litigations and therefore all averments made
to the effect that plaintiff had instituted several actions and/or caused to
have instituted several actions does not further the applicant's case of fraud
in any manner.
27. There is also no dispute that Mr K.C. Vij was the duly constituted
attorney of defendant no.3 and was duly empowered to sign the
compromise application. However, it is claimed that he had been misled by
defendant no.1 into believing that the entire suit property was being sold
while in fact only the share of defendant no.3 was sought to be transferred
in terms of the present application. This Court is unable to accept the said
contention as the terms of compromise as recorded in the present
application are unambiguous and unequivocal and there could be no room
for any doubt that the application only concerns the share of defendant
no.3. Mr Ashok Kapoor had also agreed to enter into a compromise with
the plaintiff for sale of his 28% undivided share in the suit property and
this was also clearly referred to in paragraph 4 of the present application
(IA no.1541/2005). There could thus be no room for doubt that the
compromise entered into by the plaintiff at the material time was only with
regard to the undivided shares of Mr. Ashok Kapoor and defendant no.3 in
the suit property. Accordingly, Mr. K.C. Vij (constituted attorney of
defendant no.3) had also signed the compromise application (that is, IA no.
1515/2005 in CS(OS) 254/2003) on behalf of defendant no.3; the said
application also confirmed the agreement of Mr Ashok Kapoor and
defendant no.3 to sell their undivided share in the suit property to the
plaintiff.
28. IA no. 1541/2005 is duly supported by an affidavit of the constituted
attorney of defendant no.3 as well as by defendant no.1. The said affidavits
clearly affirm that the deponents had understood the contents of the
application and further affirmed the same to be true and correct.
Admittedly, Mr K.C. Vij is the duly constituted attorney of defendant no.3
and it is not open for defendant no.3 now to contend that Mr K.C. Vij had
been misled into affirming the contents of the application, which were
clear and unambiguous.
29. On 25.02.2005, defendant no.3 through Mr K.C. Vij, defendant no.
3's attorney holder, had expressed the willingness to settle the disputes
with the plaintiff with respect to her share in the suit property and prayed
for a compromise decree to be passed in terms of IA no. 1541/2005. The
statement as recorded is set out below:
"IA No.1541/2005 has been signed by me. I have read
and understood the contents of this I.A. This application is
supported by my affidavit also. The original General
Power of Attorney has been handed over by me to learned
counsel for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has handed over a Pay Order in the sum of
Rs.86 lacs drawn on United Bank of India, Greater Kailash
Branch, New Delhi, dated 23rd February, 2005, bearing
No.007788, drawn in favour of defendant No.3 to me
today in Court.
I pray that a compromise decree in terms of the
compromise recorded in IA No.1541/2005 be passed."
30. A perusal of the statement recorded indicates that IA no. 1541/2005
was signed by Mr K.C. Vij on behalf of defendant no. 3 after
understanding the contents therein. Mr K.C. Vij also received a pay order
for a sum of ₹86 lacs drawn in favour of defendant no.3. In the end, Mr K.
C. Vij sought a decree in terms of compromise recorded in IA no.
1541/2005.
31. Defendant no. 1's statement in support of IA no. 1541/2005 was also
recorded on the said date, which reads as under:
"IA No.1541/2005 has been signed by me. I have read
and understood the contents of this I.A. This application is
supported by my affidavit also. The original General
Power of Attorney has been handed over by me to learned
counsel for the plaintiff.
I pray that a compromise decree in terms of the
compromise recorded in IA No.1541/2005 be passed."
32. It is also contended that the consideration offered was a fraction of
the market value of the applicant's (defendant no.3) undivided share of
22% in the suit property. This contention also is wholly unpersuasive. The
terms of the compromise application are clear and it is plainly stated that
the plaintiff would release a sum of ₹86 lacs to defendant no.3 as full and
final payment towards her share in the suit property.
33. In compliance with the orders passed by this Court, defendant no.3
had filed an affidavit dated 15.05.2007, clearing affirming that she had
received a total amount of ₹1,11,00,000/- (One Crore Eleven Lakhs) as
part consideration against her 22% undivided share in the suit property.
This includes a sum of ₹86 lacs received by defendant no.3 from the
plaintiff on 25.02.2005. The affidavit filed by defendant no.3 on
15.05.2007 also indicated that she had deposited a sum of ₹21 lacs in the
Registry of this Court but the balance amount received had been utilized in
the manner as indicated in the affidavit. Thus, there could be no dispute
that defendant no.3 had received the entire consideration as mentioned in
the present application (IA no.1541/2005).
34. It was also contended that the plaintiff had independently agreed
with defendant no.3 for a higher consideration. However, the said
contention cannot be accepted. The same is without any basis or any
material on record.
35. This Court is also unable to accept that the compromise is not
lawful. It is contended that sale of undivided share by any of the co-owners
of the suit property would be contrary to the consent decree passed on
13.12.2002 whereby all the co-owners had inter alia agreed that the suit
property could not be partitioned by metes and bounds and would be sold
as a whole. This contention is also inconsiderable as defendant no.3 was
not precluded from selling her undivided share. It is also relevant to
mention that Mr Ashok Kapoor had already sold his undivided 28% share
of the suit property to the plaintiff. Further the Court had in the order dated
13.07.2016 (passed in IA no.1515/2005 in CS(OS)254/2003) clarified that
the sale of the undivided share of Mr. Ashok Kapoor would not prejudice
any rights of the other co-owners. Clearly, the settlement as recorded in IA
no.1541/2005 would also be without prejudice to the rights and contentions
of the co-owners. Thus, this Court finds no reason to reject IA
no.1541/2005.
36. Accordingly, IA no.843/2006 and IA no.4476/2014 are rejected. The
present application (IA no.1541/2005) is allowed.
37. The suit is, accordingly, decreed against defendant no.3 in terms of
the compromise application (IA no.1541/2005). Let a decree sheet be
drawn up. The application shall form a part of the decree sheet.
38. It is clarified that this order will not affect the rights of other co-
owners of the suit property in any manner whatsoever. This would include
their right, if any, to demand that defendant no. 3's undivided share be sold
to them and/or that the suit property be sold as a whole for realising the
value of their undivided share in the suit property. This is of course subject
to their establishing such rights.
39. The Registry is directed to refund the amount deposited by
defendant no.3 with the Registry of this Court along with accrued interest.
CS (OS) 554/2004
40. List for further proceedings on 09.08.2017.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JULY 06, 2017
pkv/RK
