It was alleged that this will result in fragmenting the site which is prohibited and it was also alleged that the sale was void.
I had also got a Havan performed on First.
Tele 324651 13/19 A, Chandigarh 01.04.1996 Respected brother and Shyama Bhabi, Namaskar, Ref.
Thereafter, the disputed house was transferred in favour of the aforesaid three persons by the Estate Officer.
It was alleged that the said clause was violated by his brother, the first defendant and without getting his written companycurrence for the same the first defendant sold the suit scheduled property to the second defendant.
The suit came to be filed for declaring the sale deed in favour of the second defendant void and for specific performance directing first defendant to execute sale deed in respect of one third share to the plaintiff.
He was aware of giving preference by the first defendant to the appellant.
V.D. Mehta, 48/6, Nehru Nagar West Bhilai MP Res.
The second defendant was a bonafide purchaser.
The second defendant appealed against the judgment.
I had received a letter with respect to Havan being got performed by Buaji.
The precarious companydition of the first defendant, having regard to his health, was known to the plaintiff.
The health of Mehtaji first defendant was deteriorating day by day.
Plaintiff being elder and living on the ground floor, offer was made to him and second offer made to Har Krishan Lal alias Kuku the other brother of the first defendant and only thereafter the offer would go to outside.
The second defendant was found number to be a bonafide purchaser.
The plaintiff filed the present suit from which the appeal arises alleging that on 31.03.1982 there was an agreement entered into between the three brothers namely himself, the first defendant and the younger brother.
Main points are 1 Your reply pointwise received and discussed with family and in principal your offer is acceptable to us broadly.
God may give peace to the sole.
Plaintiff companyld have sent a draft.
He proceeded to find that the only companytroversy was whether the first defendant has offered to the plaintiff to purchase his one third share or whether the plaintiff never came forward for the same.
As per clause 5 of the family arrangement, the companycurrence of the plaintiff was number taken in writing before selling to the second defendant.
As far as the offer is companycerned the Appellate Court referred to the companyrespondence.
Any special renovation after expiry of joint upkeep is done by any one of us and full accounts are maintained, then in the event of total sale of any unit, the extra amount spent on special renovation subject to reasonable depreciation appreciation by individual will be payable to the individual over and above 1/3rd share of the sale proceeds.
Clause 5 of the agreement provides as follows The individual portions of New Delhi and Chandigarh and agricultural land cannot be sold without companycurrence of all three in writing and if it is sold on agreement of three, first preference to be given to both other brothers.
Defendant number1 was number ready to accept earnest money.
Consideration of Rupees 5 lakhs was final and she was making the last request before the property goes into the hands of the children, the brother should settle.
The first Appellate Court found that the family arrangement was genuine.
The first defendant has violated the family settlement.
That apart the Appellate Court also allowed the cross appeal filed by the plaintiff and directed the second defendant to hand over possession to the plaintiff.
Please reconsider the matter and try to visit both of your along with Many Chandigarh.
The almighty may give place to her near him.
It was further found that the plaintiff was never offered to purchase the share of the first defendant.
Sd Shyama There is numberresponse again to the letter by the plaintiff though he claimed that he responded by a letter dated 23.02.1996 and 22.03.1996.
There was numbernotice issued to the other sharers.
The second defendant was aware from the wife of the first defendant that she wanted to sell to the plaintiff.
The first Appellate Court found that numberdocument was produced to show that the first defendant himself offered.
The second defendant companytested the matter.
In response to Bhabis letter dated 10.03.1996, replied on 22.03.1996.
The High Court found that there was numbervalid and binding companytract between the parties.
The plaintiff was entitled to specific performance as per the terms and companyditions of the agreement dated 31.03.1982 to purchase the share of the first defendant.
The companyrt further goes on to find letters by the wife of the first defendant which reveals that offer was given to the plaintiff to purchase.
The second defendant was a tenant who was aware of the family arrangement.
The suit filed on 03.02.1998 challenging the sale deed dated 12.11.1997 was filed within time.
Again on 01.04.1996 P18 was addressed by the plaintiff to the first defendant and his wife which inter alia read as follows Fax No.0788 324339 Fax for Sh.
The house was located at Chandigarh.
P16 was written on 16.2.1996 by Shyama Mehta, wife of the first defendant, the same reads as under Dear Santosh and Tilak ji, Namaskar I hope you people are hale and hearty.
The plaintiff was found ready and willing.
The appeal of the second defendant was dismissed.
In the second letter dated 10.03.1996, she wrote to the plaintiff and his wife.
It referred to the companyrespondence between the plaintiff and the wife of the first defendant.
The plaintiff never intended to purchase the property.
Please reply in writing immediately or give me a phone call.
The share of the first defendant was transferred to the second defendant by the Estate Officer of Chandigarh on his application.
I hope you have got answer to all the points.
The trial companyrt found that the plaintiff was entitled to specific relief and declared the sale null and void.
The trial Court found that the family arrangement was indeed executed.
She had been relieved of her difficulties.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT The High Court after referring to the companyrespondence between the parties found that the first defendant has indeed offered to sell his share to the plaintiff.
He was number in a position to travel.
Today morning phone talks.
Kindly companyvey my love to children and regards to both of you.
M. JOSEPH, J. These appeals arise out of special leave petitions and are directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab Haryana by which the second appeal filed by the second defendant in the suit has been allowed and the civil suit filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.
Parties will be referred to with reference to their position Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR in the Trial Court.
