The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to determine the fair market value of the suit property based on various valuation reports and methods, including the Guidelines for Valuation of Immovable Properties 2009, and to uphold its determination despite the appellant's contentions.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - This appeal is against the judgement and decree dated 23rd October, 2019 passed in a civil suit filed by the respondent herein against the present appellant, seeking the partition of the property bearing No. 3, Block A-1, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-51, (''suit property'') whereby the suit property has been valued at the rate of Rs. 3.75 lakhs/sq.yard, and the respondent has been given the right to purchase the 1/16th share of the appellant in the suit property.

2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. The suit property was originally owned by late Chunni Lal who executed sale deed dated 14th February, 1958 transferring equal shares in the suit property to Sh. Yagdev Sharma and Sh. Bhim Dev. During their lifetime, these joint purchasers further sold their respective shares in the suit property. Sh. Bhim Dev sold his 1/2 share to Sh. Suresh Chand and Sh. Tej Kumar Jain, the father of the appellant, both of whom acquired 1/4th share each in the suit property. On the death of Sh. Tej Kumar Jain, his four sons succeeded to his 1/4th share, in equal proportion. Thus, the appellant came to hold a 1/16th share in the suit property.

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent had on 23rd April, 2010, purchased the 1/2 share of late Yagdev Sharma and the 1/4th share of late Suresh Chand from their successors-in-interest, vide registered sale deeds. The three brothers of the appellant sold their 3/4th share out of the 1/4th share of late Tej Kumar Jain in the suit property to the respondent vide a registered sale deed executed on 29th October, 2010. Thus, admittedly it owns the entire suit property save for the extent of 1/16th share of the appellant in it. On the strength of these sale deeds the respondent filed a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 18th April, 2017 to the effect that the respondent was the owner of the suit property to the extent of 15/16th share and the appellant was owner with 1/16th share.

4. The court appointed a Local Commissioner to divide the suit property by metes and bounds. In the meantime, the appellant filed an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 claiming that the suit property was a dwelling house and he being the sole resident desired to exercise his right of pre-emption and expressed his willingness to purchase the share of the respondent at the "value assessed by" the court, ascertained as on the date of filing of the suit for partition, i.e. 24th September, 2014 which he would pay as per the schedule set out in the application.

5. Vide order dated 31st October, 2018 the application was dismissed, holding, for reasons given, that the suit property had lost its character of "dwelling house" and to peg the value of the house at a rate prevalent four years prior to the date of the order would be unfair to the parties and a fairer date would be the date when the appellant had moved his application under section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 i.e. 12th July, 2018. An Independent Valuer Sh. Kameshwar Prasad Singh was appointed by the court to calculate the value of the suit property. The appellant was granted the option of paying to the respondent the value of its share or to be paid the value of 1/16th share in the suit property. The appeal preferred by the appellant against this order dated 31st October, 2018 was disposed of by a consent order dated 10th April, 2019 as the respondent agreed to sell its share to the appellant for a fair market value and the court directed the appellant to place a proposal for the purchase of the 15/16th share of the respondent at a "fair market value determined in terms of law" before the Single Judge.

6. Following the said order, the appellant filed his proposal on 22nd May, 2019 pegging his offer to purchase the share of the respondent in case the valuation arrived at by the court was "below or within range of 0% to 7% escalation from the valuation reports of Dr. S.N.