In Brief
The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeals against a sale of his brother's one-third share in a Chandigarh property to a tenant (second defendant). The three brothers had a 1982 family settlement providing that any brother selling his share must obtain written consent from the others and offer first preference to them. The first defendant offered his share to the appellant for Rs. 5 lakhs, which the appellant considered reasonable but failed to act upon due to other family priorities. The Court held the family settlement was genuine but the first defendant's offer constituted adequate compliance with preference requirements. The appellant's failure to seize the offer, despite its reasonable terms, and his not insisting on written concurrence, estopped him from later enforcing the clause. The sale to the second defendant did not violate anti-fragmentation rules as the share was validly transferred and mutated by the authorities. The appeals were dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.