CRP/2567/2022 of V.RANGANATHAN Vs JOE FERNANDEZ on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This revision is restricted to the immovable property that was left to the legatees who are sons of Smt.Rosalin Nathan by Will dated 22.05.1995. The suit for partition was laid by two of her sons claiming their respective entitlements in terms of the bequests under the said Will of the mother late Smt.Rosalin Nathan.

2. Though the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding under Ex.A.3, subsequently, an effective and amicable partition did not come through and hence, the plaintiffs, two in number, who are the respondents herein and their legal representatives, as applicable, filed a suit for partition and a preliminary decree came to be passed and pending final decree, the petitioner/defendant exercised option to purchase the remaining shares of his two brothers and necessary enquiry was conducted by the trial Court and after appointing a Commissioner and getting a valuation of the immovable property done, the Court fixed a sum of Rs.2.71 Crores for the property as the then prevailing market value. However, this valuation was done in the year 2022. Even though, the Court fixed the above valuation, the revision petitioner/defendant was not satisfied with the said valuation and it was his contention that the value that has been arrived at by the Commissioner was exaggerated and had factored future and proposed expenses which cannot be taken into account while arriving at the market value of the property as on the date of proposed sale/division.

3. Today, Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant would take me through the Commissioner’s Report and also the inputs that have gone into in arriving at the value of Rs.2.71 crores. He would contend that the valuation was clearly exaggerated and wholly unsustainable since the Commissioner has factored the expenses like planning expenses, obtaining of service connection in future etc., which cannot be forming part of the value of the property as on the date of the sale. However, Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel also relies upon a valuation Report dated on 04.04.2026 which reflects the market value as Rs.2.03 crores.

4. Be that as it may, Mr.S.Karthikaibalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 who are the legal representatives of one of the plaintiffs submits that today, the property’s price has gone up and even the value of Rs.2.71 crores that was fixed way back in 2022 has become insignificant. He further states that the petitioner has lost his opportunity to exercise his right of pre-emption in view of the findings of the first appellate Court. In this regard, he took me through the judgment of the first appellate Court .

5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has relied on an additional typed set of papers and has given a valuation dated 07.04.2026 and in terms of the said valuation, furnished by a Chartered Engineer, the market value of the immovable property, as of April 2026 is Rs.5.50 crores. Learned counsel for the first respondent therefore states that in the best interest of all the parties, the property may be sold for highest price and the moiety can be divided as in terms of the preliminary decree already passed, declaring the respective entitlement of the parties.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7. Admittedly, the revision was filed way back in the year 2022 challenging a valuation that was made in and around that time. Today, property prices have increased multifold and it would be unfair for all the parties to now fall back on the value that was fixed based on the then prevailing market rates in the year 2022. Further, the following factors are also kept in mind

(i) The defendant is in physical possession of the property and has been maintaining the same.

(ii) The first respondent is staying abroad and wants the best value for the property by way of sale and therefore, he is insisting the property being sold in open market so that all parties would be benefited with the best sale consideration.

(iii) The respondents 2 to 4 are challenging the right of the petitioner/defendant to continue to exercise the right of pre-emption in view of the findings of the first appellate Court which contemplate that on failure of payment of the shares to the other parties to the suit viz., the plaintiffs, then, the first appellate Court has declared that the defendant would lose his right of pre-emption and it would also be open to any of the plaintiffs also to propose to purchase the suit property and pay of the shares of the other parties.

8. On going through the judgment of the first appellate Court and the subsequent events, prima facie, I am unable to accept the arguments of Mr.S.Karthikaibalan that the petitioner/defendant has forfeited his right of pre-emption. He approached the Court to exercise his right of pre-emption and called upon the Court to fix the value to be paid by him. In pursuance of the same, an enquiry has been conducted and the Court also fixed the market value of the property. Not satisfied with the valuation, the petitioner/defendant has approached this Court by way of revision. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the first appellate Court can be put against the petitioner to contend that the petitioner’s right of pre-emption to purchase the property has been lost.

9. In the light of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the revision petition in the following manner:-

(i) The order impugned in the revision petition in I.A.No.163 of 2015 is set aside, limited to the immovable property, viz.,

S.F.No.405/2, Door.63/41. C.S.Rathnasabapathy Street, Cooperative Colony, K.K.Pudur, Coimabtore .

(ii) The parties shall appear before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore on 14.10.2026, on which date, the matter shall be called before the learned Judge.

(iii) the learned Judge shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner and direct present valuation of the immovable property which is subject matter of the revision petition and ascertain the prevailing market value as on date.

(iv) It is needless to state that the market value of the property should be on the basis of the present status of the property, land and building and shall not include any future contemplated expenses.

(v) On receipt of the valuation, it shall be open to the revision petitioner as well the respondents including the first respondent, to exercise a pre-emptive right to meet the said valuation of the

Advocate Commissioner.

(vi) In the event of more than one of the parties proposing to exercise a right of pre-emption, then, the Court shall conduct an auction amongst the parties and shall ensure that sale is effected in favour of the party who gives the highest bid.

(vii) An upset price of Rs.3,00,00,000/-(Rupees Three Crores Only) shall be the base value for all the parties to the lis to improve upon on the said date viz., 14.10.2026.

(viii) It shall be open to the parties to give their respective offers in a sealed cover to the trial Judge and on an assigned date, the said sealed cover by the parties shall be opened in open Court and thereafter, if any of the parties want to improve upon their offer, it shall be open to them and the exercise of conducting the auction within the family shall be concluded within a period of four weeks.

(ix) Since the first respondent is residing abroad, he shall be authorised to be represented though counsel and e-mail communications sent from the first respondent shall be admitted as contentions of the first respondent by the trial Court.

(x) The parties are agreeable for amicably resolving their disputes by taking their respective shares in terms of the preliminary decree excepting for the above modification pertaining to S.F.No.405/2, Door.63/41. C.S.Rathnasabapathy Street, Cooperative Colony, K.K.Pudur, Coimabtore.

(xi) Since the property is agreed to be sold within the family, the consideration of time frame shall be strictly construed and the trial Court shall call upon the successful bidder to deposit the money to be paid to the remaining shares within a period of six weeks.

(xii) It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner/defendant not being successful in giving the best offer and getting the immovable property to his benefit/entitlement, then, he shall be obliged to hand over vacant possession to the successful bidder, within a period of three months from the date of the bid being concluded and across payment of his due share of the sale consideration.

(xiii) Any default committed by the parties shall be construed strictly.

10. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 2567 of 2022 28.09.2026