Judge to assess value of Salman Rushdie’s ancestral house in Delhi

The Delhi high court has asked a single judge to ascertain the value of the 5,373 square yards ancestral property writer Salman Rushdie situated on Flagstaff Road in Civil Lines.

A high court division bench of justice Vibhu Bhakru and justice Amit Mahajan passed the direction while setting aside a December 24, 2019 order which had pegged the property’s value at ₹130 crore.

“We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the single judge to determine the value of the suit property afresh in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. We direct the registrar to place the matter before the concerned single judge on December 11, 2023 and request the single judge to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible,” the bench said in the judgment delivered on Tuesday.

The writer’s father, Anis Ahmed Rushdie, had agreed to sell the house for ₹3.75 lakh in 1970 to Congress leader Bhiku Ram. The leader paid Rs50,000 as earnest amount and assured the pay the rest later. The deal, however, did not go through as the two families got into a legal dispute accusing each other of not respecting the terms of the agreement.

In 1977, Bhikhu Ram moved a Delhi court seeking its intervention to enforce the agreement. A court in 1983 ruled in favour of the Congress leader, directing him to pay the balance of ₹3.25 lakh at the time of executing the sale deed.

The Rushdies appealed against the order in the Delhi high court which ruled in October 2011 that the Jains could not ask for the transfer of the bungalow. The high court directed the Rushdies to return ₹50,000 earnest money with 12% annual interest.

The congress leader’s son— Narender Kumar Jain and Arvind Kumar Jain approached the

Supreme Court. On December 3, 2012, the Supreme Court directed for executing the sale deed in the Bhikhu Ram’s favour at the market price of the property. The Supreme Court also remitted the matter back to the high court while directing the single judge to correctly assess the market value of the suit property.

The single judge assessed that the market value of the property as on December 3, 2012, was ₹130 crore. The Jains, however, approached the division bench of the high court, challenging the single judge’s order after the Rushdies said they had a prospective buyer who was ready to purchase the house at that price.

The single judge had said if the Rushdies were unable to sell the property for a minimum of ₹130 crore within 60 days from then, the Jains would be entitled to purchase the property for ₹75 crore which was the circle rate prevailing on December 4, 2012.

In the appeal, the Jains contended that the single judge’s order exceeded the scope of remand which was limited to determining the market value of the property as on December 3, 2012.

The division bench said the approach of putting in place two separate sale considerations for the property, one determined at ₹130 crore with further recourse to perform the agreement at ₹75 crore if the Jains did not pay the amount and the Rushdies could not secure the same by further sale, is wholly alien to the scope of determination of the market value of the suit property as on December 3, 2012.

Clearly, there cannot be two market values of the same property for specific performance of the agreement to sell, it said.

“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 said.

The bench said it was unable to concur with the single judge’s view that judicial notice could be taken that the price of the property as on December 3, 2012 would be higher than the price of immovable property as on the date of its determination (that is, on December 12, 2019).

“The assumption that the prices of immovable properties have fallen since 2012 to 2019 does not appear to be supported by any evidence on record. At any rate no material has been alluded to by the court in arriving at the said conclusion. The mitigating factors as mentioned by the plaintiffs were also required to be considered,” it said.

(With PTI inputs)