SACHIN DATTA, J.

IA No.3292/2020 (joint application on behalf of defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908, for passing a decree in terms of settlement dated 03.03.2020).

IA No.8446/2023 (joint application filed on behalf of defendant nos.1 and 3 under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for passing a decree in terms of settlement dated 28.04.2023).

1. By way of the present joint applications under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”),the defendant nos. 1 and 4 and defendant nos. 1 and 3 respectively, have prayed that a decree be passed in terms of the settlement agreement dated 03.03.2020 executed between defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 and settlement agreement dated 28.04.2023 executed between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3, whereby, the defendant nos. 3 and 4 have agreed to sell/transfer their share in property bearing Plot No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi-110048 admeasuring 272 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) to the defendant no.1.

2. In I.A. 3292/2020, the defendant no.4 and defendant no.1 have inter alia sought the following prayers with respect to the settlement agreement dated 03.03.2020:

a) record the settlement arrived at between the parties and pass a decree in terms of the same;

b) allow the defendant No.4 to execute a sale deed in respect of her undivided share in the property bearing No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi, in favour of defendant No.1;

3. In I.A. 8446/2023, the defendant no.3 and defendant no.1 have inter alia sought the following prayers with respect to the settlement agreement dated 28.04.2023:

a) record the settlement arrived at between the parties and pass a decree in terms of the same;

b) allow the defendant No.3 to execute a sale deed in respect of her undivided share in the property bearing No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi, in favour of defendant No.1;

4. The relevant facts are that the suit property was originally owned / purchased by late Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi, who was the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff.

5. Late Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi and his wife late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi had three children, namely, Mr. Gursharan Singh Oberoi (defendant no.1), late Smt. Manjeet Kaur Duggal (defendant no.2 through her LRs) and late Mr. V.S. Oberoi.

6. Late Mr. V.S. Oberoi and his wife late Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi (the original plaintiff in the present suit) had three daughters, namely, Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Sawhney (plaintiff), Mrs. Gurpreet Kaur Bajaj (defendant no.3) and Mrs. Pavneet Kaur (defendant no.4).

7. It is averred in the suit that late Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi passed away leaving behind a registered Will dated 07.05.2003. The said Will dated 07.05.2003 contains the following recitals with respect to the suit property:

“6. I give and bequeath my aforesaid residential house No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi alongwith all other moveable assets that I may own at my demise to my wife Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi, who shall have full right to deal with these assets in any manner, whatsoever, including the right to sell and alienate the same without any interference from any other heir of mine. However, all rates; taxes and the maintenance expenses of the aforesaid residential house shall be borne and paid by my son Mr. Gursharan Singh Oberoi and my daughter-in-law Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi as long as they continue to stay in the said house alongwith my wife, further they shall also be responsible for my wife's welfare befitting her status.

7. Incase my wife pre-deceases me, my aforesaid residential house No. 78 Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi shall devolve on my son Mr. Gursharan Singh Oberoi and my daughter-in-law Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi as absolute owners in the following shares:-

Gursharan Singh Oberoi:- First and Second / Barsati Floor.

Narinder Kaur Oberoi:- Ground floor with store room on the mezzanine floor."

8. Late Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi pre-deceased his wife, and as per his Will, the suit property is stated to have devolved upon his wife late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi.

9. It is averred in the suit that the defendant no.1 propounded a Will dated 04.04.2006 of late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi, which is stated to have been executed by her before her demise. The said Will dated 04.04.2006 contains the following recitals with respect to the suit property:

“4. I have inherited from my husband Late Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi, one, two and half storeyed house No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi-110048 by virtue of his Will dated 7.5.2003. This residential property is self acquired property of my husband, Late Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi and nobody else has any interest or right, whatsoever, in it.

5. I give and bequeath my aforesaid residential house no. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi to my son Mr. Gursharan Singh Oberoi and daughter-in-law Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi as absolute owners in the following shares:-

Mr. Gursharan Singh Oberoi	First and Second/Barsati Floors with terrace rights.
Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi	Ground floor with store room on mezzanine floor.

6. All the taxes and maintenance expenses of the respective shares of the aforesaid residential properties shall be borne by the aforesaid Mr. Gursharan Singh Oberoi and Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi in proportion to their respective shares.”

10. A probate petition bearing Test Case No. 66/2014 with respect to the Will dated 04.04.2006 of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi is pending before this court, wherein, all the defendants in the present suit have admitted the existence and validity of the Will dated 04.04.2006, however, the plaintiff herein has objected to the said Will on the grounds that the same is a forged and fabricated document, while stating that Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi had died intestate. The plaintiff has also prayed in the present suit that the Will dated 04.04.2006 be declared null and void.

11. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the present suit seeking partition of the suit property and other reliefs was originally filed by late Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi, i.e., the mother of the plaintiff.

12. After the demise of Late Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi, Smt. Jatinder Kaur Sawhney was transposed as the plaintiff vide order dated 08.08.2018 passed by this court. Vide the said order, this court also directed that status quo qua the suit property be maintained by all parties.

13. Vide order dated 15.11.2018, the parties to the present suit were referred to mediation under the aegis of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, to seek amicable resolution of the disputes. It was further directed vide the said order that the status quo order passed on 08.08.2018 shall operate during the pendency of the suit.

14. Vide order dated 28.01.2020 passed by this court, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the defendants may enter into inter-se settlement without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the plaintiff and subject to orders that may finally be passed in the suit.

15. Thereafter, a settlement agreement dated 03.03.2020 was executed between defendant no.4 and defendant no.1.

16. In the settlement agreement dated 03.03.2020, it was inter alia agreed between the defendant no.4 and defendant no.1 that defendant no.4 would sell/transfer all her rights, title and interest in respect of her 1/3rd undivided share in the ground floor and store room on the mezzanine floor of the suit property, devolved upon her by virtue of the purported will dated 04.04.2006 of Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi, in favour of defendant no.1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs Only). The said agreement, inter alia, records as under:

“NOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT WITNESSETH AS UNDER:

1. That in consideration of the First Party having agreed to sell/transfer all her rights, title and interest in respect of her undivided share in the property bearing No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi in favour of the Second Party, the Second Party has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs Only), out of which a cheque bearing No. 819408 dated 03.03.2020 drawn on PNB, Nehru Place, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) has been handed over by the Second party to the First Party at the time of signing of this Memorandum of Settlement. Out of the balance sale consideration, a further sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only), would be paid on 03.09.2020. Towards payment of the above mentioned amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Only), two post dates cheques of Rs. 11,00,000/- each bearing No. 819408 and 819411 dated 03.06.2020 and 03.09.2020 respectively, drawn on PNB, Nehru Place, New Delhi, of the above mentioned amount have been handed over at the time of execution of the present settlement. The First Party has declared and assured the First Party that the cheque would be honoured upon presentation. Balance amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) is undertaken to be paid by the Second Party at the time of Registration of sale deed by way of demand draft in favour of the First party within a maximum period of nine months after obtaining necessary permission from the Hon’ble Court, for which necessary application seeking permission to execute sale deed, would be filed by the parties jointly before the Hon’ble High Court. The First Party also undertakes to execute the sale deed in favour of the Second Party qya her share in the property, within a period of nine months after receiving permission from the Hon’ble Court in the partition suit in favour of the Second Party or his nominee(s);

2. First Party has the actual physical possession of the property and keys of the property have been deposited by her with the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court she has handed over only symbolic possession of the property in question and after obtaining necessary orders in this regard from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, undertakes to execute a Sale Deed qua her share of the. property in question in favour of the Second Party and simultaneously Second Party shall be entitled to take the keys from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, for which First party has no objection;”

17. On 06.12.2022, the parties again expressed their desire to try to amicably resolve the matter before this court. Accordingly, the parties were again referred to Mediation under the aegis of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

18. During the course of mediation, a settlement was also arrived at between defendant no.3 and defendant no.1, and accordingly, a settlement agreement dated 28.04.2023 was executed between the said defendants.

19. In the settlement agreement dated 28.04.2023, it was inter alia agreed between the defendant no.3 and defendant no.1 that defendant no.3 would sell/transfer all her rights, title and interest in respect of her 1/3rd share of ground floor and 1/3rd share of one room on mezzanine floor in the suit property, devolved upon her by virtue of will dated 04.04.2006 of late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi, in favour of defendant no.1for a consideration of Rs. 1,43,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Three Lakhs Only). The said agreement inter alia records as under:

NOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT WITNESSETH AS UNDER:

1. That in consideration of the First Party having agreed to sell/transfer all her rights, title and interest in respect of her 1/3rd share of ground floor and 1/3rd share of one room on mezzanine floor of the property bearing No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi in favour of the Second Party, the Second Party has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,43,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Three Lakhs Only), out of which a Demand Draft dated 26.04.2023 bearing No. 443714 drawn on State Bank of India, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) has been handed over by the Second party to the First Party at the time of signing of this Memorandum of Settlement. The First Party acknowledges the receipt of the Demand Draft; Balance amount of Rs. 1.23 Crores is undertaken to be paid by the Second Party at the time of Registration of Sale Deed by way of demand draft in favour of the First party within a period of six months after obtaining necessary permission from the Hon’ble Court, for which necessary application seeking permission to execute sale deed, would be filed by the parties jointly before the Hon’ble High Court. The First Party also undertakes to execute the sale deed in favour of the Second Party qua her share in the property, within a period of six months after receiving permission from the Hon’ble Court in the partition suit in favour of the Second Party or his nominee(s); It is clarified that the First Party has agreed to sell her share in above noted property only to the Second Party, who is the real uncle of the First Party and not a stranger to the suit property. It is further clarified that the First Party do not intend to transfer her share in the property in favour of her sister Smt. Jatinder Kaur, as her feelings got hurt when, she got removed the Pooja Ghar maintained by her grandparents at the mezzanine floor and shifted Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in a room at the ground floor of the suit property.

2. First Party has the actual physical possession of the property and keys of the property have been deposited by her with the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court she has handed over only symbolic possession Of the property in question and after obtaining necessary orders in this regard from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, undertakes to execute a Sale Deed qua her share of the. property in question in favour of the 'Second Party and simultaneously Second Party shall be entitled to take the keys from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, for which First Party has no objection;”

20. Vide order dated 16.10.2023, at the request of the parties, the parties were yet again referred to mediation under the aegis of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution of the matter, however, neither of the parties were present and the matter was sent back to this Court as a non-starter.

21. The present joint applications have been opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the Will dated 04.04.2006 of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Singh is a forged and fabricated document. It is submitted that a probate petition bearing Test Case No. 66/2014 is pending before this court, wherein the plaintiff has raised objections with respect to the said Will.

22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the shares of the parties have not yet been determined and the alleged Will dated 04.04.2006 needs to be proved in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the registered Will dated 07.05.2003 of Late Mr. Inder Singh Oberoi is also required to be proved in accordance with law to determine the respective rights and shares of the parties.

23. It is submitted that the extent of share of defendant nos. 3 and 4 cannot be determined till the Will dated 07.05.2003 of Late Mr. Inder Singh Oberoi and Will dated 04.04.2006 of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi is proved in accordance with law. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgments in Ramesh Verma v. Lajesh Saxena (2017) 1 SCC 257 and Shampa Ghosh v. Alok Kumar Dey (2022) SCC OnLine Del 4019 to contend that the will cannot be used by the defendants to determine their share in the suit property till the same is proved as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

24. It is submitted that since both the memorandum of settlement executed between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 and defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 respectively, are based on the alleged Will dated 04.04.2006, the same cannot be valid as the rights of the parties are yet to be determined.

25. The plaintiff has also raised an objection that the inter-se settlement between the defendant nos. 1 and 3 and defendant nos. 1 and 4 is in violation of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is submitted that as per Section 22 of the said Act, the plaintiff has a right of pre-emption and first right to purchase the undivided share of defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit property, if either of them propose to sell/ alienate the same.

26. It is submitted that Section 22 of the said Act has been enacted to keep out strangers from immovable property so that the property of the deceased can be retained by their Class-I legal heirs. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Ganesh Chandra Pradhan v. Rukmuni Mohantyair 1971 Orissa 65, Valliyil Sreedevi Amma v. Subhadra Devi AIR 1976 Kerala 19, P. Srinivasamurthy v. P. Leelavathy AIR 2000 Madras 516, Arti Das v. Bharat Sarkar AIR 2009 Calcutta 8, Leeladevi v. Bijay Prasad AIR 2011 Patna 95, Pabitra Kumar Maity v. Shyamali Manna & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 1436.

27. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the actions of defendant nos. 3 and 4 in selling their undivided share to defendant no.1 are in violation of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and are thus null and void, and liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the defendant nos. 3 and 4 never offered to sell their undivided share to the plaintiff prior to entering into settlement agreements with the defendant no.1, whereby they have agreed to sell their respective shares to defendant no.1. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the undivided shares of defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit property at the same rate and on the same terms as have been agreed upon between the defendant nos. 3, 4 and defendant no.1.

28. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff with respect to the settlement agreements dated 03.03.2020 and 28.04.2023 is that the said settlement agreements are collusive in nature. It is submitted that the goal of defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 is to take over the possession of the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the suit property, which is protected by the status quo order passed by this Court. It is further submitted that accepting the alleged valuation done by the said defendants and decreeing suit on that basis will imply that the plaintiff shall also be compelled to accept the quantum of share decided by defendant nos. 3 and 4 and will be bound by it. It is further submitted that the valuation of the share of defendant nos.3 and 4 of the suit property done by the defendants in the alleged Settlement Agreements dated 03.03.2020 and 28.04.2023 is incorrect and highly undervalued, thereby showing the collusion between the defendants.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.

29. The present suit for partition seeks partition of the suit property which originally belonged to late Mr. Inder Singh Oberoi. After his demise, since he pre-deceased his wife, his late wife Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of registered Will dated 27.05.2003 of late Mr. Inder Singh Oberoi.

30. Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi is also stated to have left behind a Will dated 04.04.2006, according to which, the late mother of the plaintiff, i.e., Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi, who was the original plaintiff in the present suit, was given ownership and rights in the ground floor and store room on the mezzanine floor of the suit property.

31. The plaintiff has also sought to raise a controversy with respect to the registered Will dated 07.05.2003 of late Shri Inder Singh Oberoi, however, there is no specific prayer qua the validity of the Will dated 07.05.2003 in the suit with respect to cancellation of the same, despite the plaintiff having full knowledge of the said will before filing of the present suit. There is no probate pending with respect to the Will dated 07.05.2003, and the plaintiff has in fact relied upon the said Will dated 07.05.2003 to determine/assert her share. The objection that the plaintiff has sought to raise with respect to the Will dated 07.05.2003 is that no probate has been obtained with respect to the said Will and the same cannot be relied upon till the same is proved in accordance with law. However, in view of the judgment in Clarens Pais and Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 4 SCC 325, if a Will is executed in the state of Delhi and does not relate to any property situated within the cities of Kolkata, Chennai or Mumbai, then such Will is not mandatorily required to be probated.

32. Therefore, the controversy which remained is with respect to the Will dated 04.04.2006 of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi.

33. The plaintiff has raised objections with respect to the validity of the Will dated 04.04.2006 of her grandmother and has sought that the said Will be declared null and void. The remaining defendants, being the sisters of the plaintiff (defendant nos.3 and 4) and the brother and the sister of the plaintiff’s late father (defendant nos.1 and 2) have admitted the said Will. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the shares of the parties cannot be determined till the Will dated 04.04.2006 is proved, and therefore, the parties cannot enter into inter-se settlement qua their respective shares, as the same are yet to be determined.

34. Even assuming that the Will dated 04.04.2006 is declared to be null and void, as sought by the plaintiff, the suit property shall devolve as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which stipulates as under:

"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.―

(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,―

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and.

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),―

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and.

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband."

35. Therefore, in case the Will is declared null and void/ or the probate with respect to the Will is not granted as prayed for by the petitioner in the pending probate petition, the position of late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi would be of a Hindu Female who died intestate, and the succession would take place according to Section 15 (1) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereby, the estate of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi would devolve upon her son, children of her late daughter, and children of her pre-deceased son in 1/3rd share, thereby making the plaintiff and her sisters 1/9th share-holders each, in the suit property.

36. In case the Will dated 04.04.2006 of Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi is held to be valid, then the ground floor and mezzanine suit property would devolve upon late Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi, i.e., the mother of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 and 4. Since late Mrs. Narinder Kaur Oberoi admittedly died intestate, the ground floor and the store room on the mezzanine floor of the suit property would devolve as per Section 15 (a) upon the plaintiff, defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 and each of them would get 1/3rd share of the ground floor and the store room on the mezzanine floor of the suit property.

37. It is therefore not in dispute that defendant no.1 has a share in the suit property. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff, defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 have a share in the suit property. Defendant no.2, who is the late daughter of Mr. Inder Singh Oberoi and Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi, who is represented through her legal representatives also has a share in the suit property, but the parties have submitted that her share has already been given and there is no dispute that she has been given a property bearing No. C-53/2175, Green Field Colony, Faridabad, by virtue of Will dated 07.05.2003 of her late father, because of which, she did not claim any rights in the suit property (as recorded vide order dated 15.11.2018 passed in the present suit). However, it is not disputed that defendant no.2 also has a share in the estate of her late father.

38. The defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 have showed their willingness to give up their rights in the suit property and the same has been recorded in settlement agreements dated 28.04.2023 and 03.03.2020 respectively. Although it may seem that the said defendants have proceeded to give up their 1/3rd share in the ground floor and store room on the mezzanine floor of the suit property, what is sought to be transferred is no doubt their entire undivided share in the suit property. This position is not controverted by learned counsel for the said defendants. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the shares of the parties are not yet determined and cannot be transferred till the Will dated 04.04.2006 is proved, cannot be sustained. Further, vide order dated 28.01.2020 passed by this court, this court recorded that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the defendants may enter into inter-se settlement without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the plaintiff and subject to orders that may finally be passed in the suit.

39. The defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 have willingly and amicably resolved to give up their rights in the suit property and the same is permissible, inasmuch as the same does not affect the rights of the plaintiff.

40. Till the time the Will dated 04.04.2006 of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi is probated, the parties cannot be compelled to hold on to their shares in the property against their will.

41. The judgments in Ramesh Verma (supra) and Shampa Ghosh (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as this court is not adjudicating upon the rights of the parties based on the Will dated 04.04.2006.

42. With respect to the objection raised by the counsel for the plaintiff that the settlement agreement and agreement to sell is in violation of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it is apposite to refer to Section 22 of the Hindu Successions Act, 1956, which reads as under:

“22. Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases.― (1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others, devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.

(2) The consideration for which any interest in the property of the deceased may be transferred under this section shall, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, be determined by the court on application being made to it in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not willing to acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application.

(3) If there are two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule proposing to acquire any interest under this section, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred.”

43. The case of the plaintiff is that Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi (the grandmother of the plaintiff) died intestate. In such a case, the plaintiff being the daughter of the pre-deceased son of late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi, would only derive her rights from her grandmother late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi. As per Schedule-I of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 are all Class-I heirs of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi. In such a case, if there are two or more heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule proposing to acquire any interest under Section 22, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred. The parties have been referred to mediation on several occasions, however, there is nothing on record to show the efforts of the plaintiff with respect to purchasing the share of defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 in the suit property. In any case, the plaintiff in her affidavit dated 26.10.2020 in response to I.A. 3292/2020 and in her reply to I.A. 8446/2023 has stated that she is ready and willing to purchase the undivided share of defendant no.4 and defendant no.3 on the same rate and on the same terms as stated to have been agreed upon between defendant no.4, defendant no.3 and defendant no.1 in the settlement agreements dated 03.03.2020 and 28.04.2023, respectively. The plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that she is willing to pay a higher consideration than defendant no.1 in order to be preferred over the other Class-I legal heirs according to Section 22(3) of the Act.

44. The judgments in Ganesh Chandra Pradhan (supra), Valliyil Sreedevi Amma (supra), P. Srinivasamurthy (supra), Arti Das (supra), Leeladevi (supra) and Pabitra Kumar Maity (supra) relied upon by the plaintiff are of no avail to the plaintiff since the plaintiff as well as the defendant no.1 are both Class-I legal heirs of Late Smt. Pritam Kaur Oberoi. It is the plaintiff’s own case that there exists no will dated 04.04.2006 of late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi, which would mean that the estate of late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi would be governed by Section 15 (1) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, as per plaintiff’s own case, the defendant no.1 being the son of late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi and the plaintiff and her sisters (defendant no.3 and defendant no.4), would all be Class-I legal heirs of Late Mrs. Pritam Kaur Oberoi.

45. Further, the purpose of Section 22 is to keep strangers from acquiring rights in a property. In the present case, defendant no.1 is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff and is no stranger to the suit property. He is stated to have been staying on the first floor of the suit property for around 40 years.

46. This Court is unable to accept that the settlement agreements between defendant no.4 and defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 and defendant no.1 are unlawful or collusive in nature. The plaintiff has had ample opportunities to participate in the mediation proceedings that led to the aforesaid settlement agreements, but the record does not reflect any bona-fide offer made by the plaintiff to purchase the undivided share of her sisters defendant no.3 and defendant no.4.

47. The present joint applications are allowed and a decree is accordingly passed, as prayed for.

48. Let a decree sheet be drawn up.

49. I.A. 3292/2020 and I.A. 8446/2023 shall form a part of the decree sheet.

50. It is clarified that this order will not affect the rights of the plaintiff or the other co-sharers in any manner whatsoever. It is also clarified that the defendant no.1 is only entitled to purchase the undivided interest of defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit property and is not entitled to possession from the date of his purchase. The right to possession would only accrue in favour of the defendant no.1 after the present suit for partition is decided and the property is finally demarcated and allotted in his favour. The only right that shall accrue to the defendant no.1 by the present order, is the right to sue for partition of the suit property and ask for the allotment of the share of defendant nos.3 and 4 in his favour, once the suit property has been partitioned.

51. The present applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.