Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Determination of Market Value Of Salman Rushdie’s Ancestral House
The Delhi High Court directed a fresh determination of the market value of Salman Rushdie's ancestral house.
The Court remanded the matter back to determine the market value following the Supreme Court’s directives in Satya Jain v Anis Ahmed Rushdie [CA No 8653 of 2012]. This decision comes as a result of appeals filed against a (trial court) Single Judge's order that had set the price at ₹130 crores.
The Court noted that the agreed-upon price between a willing buyer and seller is generally accepted as the property's value. This means the Trial Court could consider such a price if evidence supports it.
“It is well settled that the price agreeable by a willing buyer and a willing seller would, in normal circumstances, be accepted as the value of a property. Thus, it would certainly be open for the Court to take into consideration such value if evidence to the said effect was available with the Court. However, it would be erroneous to direct actual sale of the property to determine its value”, the Bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for the Appellants and Senior Advocate Ashish Dolakia appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant approached the High Court challenging the order, regarding a suit for the specific performance of a Sale Agreement. The agreement pertained to a property of Salman Rushdie, a famous writer, located in Civil Lines, Delhi. he Supreme Court had ordered the enforcement of the Agreement but at the market price prevailing on the date of the decision. As the exact market value at that time was unclear, the Apex Court remanded the case back to the Trial Court to determine the value and finalize the sale price.
The Trial Court had determined the market value of the property as ₹130 crores. However, the Trial Court also directed that if the Appellants fail to pay this price, the Respondents can sell the property for the same price within a specific period. The Appellants contended that the Trial Court exceeded its authority by setting a sale price for the property. They claim that the Court's only task was to determine the market value.
The High Court noted that post the Supreme Court’s orders, objections were raised by the Appellants claiming that Sameen Rushdie Momen (Wife of Salman Rushdie) had executed a General Power of Attorney favouring M/s Fine Properties Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of ₹4.5 crores, relinquishing her rights in the suit property.
The Bench also noted that per the Supreme Court's instructions, the Trial Court began determining the property's market value as of December 3, 2012. The Trial Court ordered an inquiry and allowed both parties to present evidence. A report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate valued the property at ₹51,51,85,000/-. The court also appointed a professional valuer, M/s ITCOT Consultancy and Services Ltd., who valued the property at ₹1,57,95,69,000/-. Both parties were allowed to cross-examine the valuer and the SDM.
During the proceedings, the Bench observed that the Respondents claimed to have a buyer willing to pay ₹145 crores for the property. However, the Bench noted that the Trial Court ultimately focused on determining the market value as of December 3, 2012, and disregarded the proposed sales.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court's limited remand was specifically for determining the market value of the suit property as of December 3, 2012, in the context of the specific performance decree.
The Court reiterated that the agreed-upon price between a willing buyer and seller is generally accepted as the property's value. This means the Trial Court could consider such a price if evidence supports it. However, conducting an actual sale solely to determine the value was considered wrong, the Court added.
Furthermore, the High Court also highlighted the potential impact on third parties claiming an interest in the property based on agreements or General Power of Attorney executed by the Respondents or predecessors. Considering these complexities, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh determination of the suit property's value in line with the Supreme Court's directions.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and listed the matter before the Trial Court on December 11, 2023.
Cause Title: Narender Jain & Anr v Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors (2023:DHC:8666-DB)
