A co-sharer does not forfeit pre-emption merely by challenging the court-fixed valuation.

Smt. Rosalin Nathan’s sons claimed shares in immovable property under her Will dated 22 May 1995. After an ineffective Memorandum of Understanding, a partition suit resulted in a preliminary decree.

The petitioner, one of the sons, sought to purchase his brothers’ shares by pre-emption. Following a Commissioner’s valuation, the trial court fixed the property’s value at ₹2.71 crore in 2022.

The petitioner challenged that valuation, contending that it included future expenses. By the time the revision was heard, the parties relied on materially different valuations, and the respondents disputed the petitioner’s continuing right to pre-emption.

The revision challenged the order in I.A. No. 163 of 2015 in O.S. No. 874 of 2008 under Section 115 CPC.

Whether the 2022 valuation should be set aside and the property revalued at its prevailing market value, excluding future contemplated expenses.

Whether the petitioner had lost his right to pre-emption, and how competing purchase offers should be determined.

The revision was brought under Section 115 CPC, though the judgment does not set out or apply a separate test for revisional intervention.

The Court’s operative directions require valuation of the property according to its present status—land and building—and exclude future contemplated expenses.

It further directed that, if more than one party sought to purchase the property, the trial court should conduct an auction and effect the sale in favour of the highest bidder, with a ₹3 crore upset price.

The Court considered the 2022 valuation stale in light of the increase in property prices and the parties’ later, substantially divergent valuations.

It also noted that the petitioner had approached the court to exercise pre-emption and had challenged the valuation fixed in that process. On that basis, the Court was not prepared to treat the first appellate court’s findings as having extinguished his right.

To address both the need for a current valuation and the competing interests of the parties, it directed a fresh valuation and an intra-family bidding process.

The trial court was directed to obtain a fresh valuation based on the property’s present condition and excluding future expenses.

The parties could submit offers, with a ₹3 crore upset price; if more than one party sought to purchase, the court was to conduct an auction and accept the highest bid.

The successful bidder was required to deposit the amounts payable to the other shareholders within six weeks. If the petitioner lost the bid, he was required to deliver vacant possession within three months after conclusion of the bid and payment of his share.

No costs were awarded.