The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely valuation and payment of consideration in pre-emption suits under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893.

JUDGMENT

I. P. Mukerji, J. - Five suits were tried together by the learned single judge and decreed on 12th September, 2014. Woodland Manufacturers Ltd. appeals to this court from that decree.

2. The property involved is Premises No.78, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata. For the purposes of the suits and this appeal, this property is to be taken as having 3 lots, 1, 2 and 3. It was undivided. Woodland is the owner of 50% share in Lot 1, 75% share in Lot 2 and 50% share in Lot 3. It was already owned by them at the material point of time.

3. In one suit (CS 501 of 1976) Woodland claimed specific performance of an alleged agreement for sale by the Gargas made on 13th September, 1973 in their favour and of a 1/4 undivided share in Lot 2 in their favour and for partition of the property. They also claimed specific performance of the agreement dated 11th June, 1973 for transfer by members of the said family in their favour, of their shares in Lots 1 and 3 (Suit No. 43 of 1989). In another suit (CS 324 of 1987) against Shankar and Kalyani, Woodland claimed partition of Lots 1 and 3 on purchase of 1/2 of the undivided shares in Lots 1 and 3. The Gargas filed two suits (CS 228 of 1984 and CS 684 of 1986) for declaration that the conveyance of 25th July, 1978, 26th July, 1978 and 25th April, 1981 executed by members of the Garga family were void.

4. The learned judge ruled that Woodland was not entitled to specific performance of the agreements. The preferential right of Shankar to purchase the interest of Woodland in Lots 1 and 3 of the subject property described in the schedule to the plaint in Suit No. 324 of 1987 under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 was allowed. Woodland was directed to transfer and convey its right, title and interest in those Lots to Shankar at a price to be determined by the Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata. Shankar would have to apply to the Registrar to let him know the market value of the suit premises as on the date of filing the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act. This application had to be made within 7 days from the date of the decree. Within a fortnight from receipt of the market value of the property from the Registrar, Shankar would have to notify this to Woodland. Simultaneously, with the communication of the decision of the Registrar, Shankar would have to forward to Woodland the draft conveyance required to be executed by them. Woodland would have to execute the conveyance within seven days of this communication. Shankar was to make over the consideration simultaneously with registration of the conveyance.

5. There was a default clause if Woodland made default but there was no default clause if Shankar was in default.

6. On 12th August, 2009 the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 was made by Shankar. On 17th September, 2014 within five days of the judgment and decree dated 12th September, 2014, T. Banerji and Company, Solicitors and Advocates wrote to the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata asking the latter to treat the same as an application to compute the market value of the suit premises in terms of this judgment and decree. In the decree there was no time limit upon the Registrar to make this computation.

7. On 6th August, 2015 the said Solicitors wrote to the Registrar to dispose of that application at the earliest. On 10th August, 2015 the Registrar wrote back that the market value as on 12th August, 2009 was not available in his office and that Shankar's solicitors should contact the Inspector General of Registration and the Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, West Bengal. On 11th August, 2015 T. Banerji & Company reiterated the contents of their letter of 6th August, 2015, to the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, West Bengal to the Registrar.

8. In 2017 a writ application was filed in this court (WP 398 of 2017) (Rajesh Poddar vs. West Bengal Information Commission and Ors.). On 24th July, 2017 this court passed an order directi