G KAILASAM Vs. G MUTHUCHANDRAN CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING to exercise the right of pre-emption, the plaintiff has filed the Suit for a declaration that he has pre-emption right of first option to purchase the Suit schedule prop"erty and for a consequential injunction re-straining the defendant from in any manner alienating the Suit schedule property to any Third Party. The applicant/plaintiff has also obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from selling/alienating the Suit schedule property. For convenience, the Parties are referred in their original rank in the Suit.

(2.) THE uncontroversial facts are these

(3.) RESISTING the Suit and the Application in O.A. No. 1037 of 2007, the defendant has filed the Counter contending as follows: The plaintiff has commercially exploited the property and did not mend his ways and made the life of the defendant miserable. The defendant had executed a Settlement Deed in respect of undi"vided half share in favour of his wife on 21.8.2002 and 17.4.2006. The plaintiff having exercised the right of pre-emption does not have a prima facie case to seek for enforcement of the right. Though, the exchange of communication began at the earliest in 30.3.2006, the plaintiff had not exercised the right within one year from the said date. The plaintiffs mere expression that he is willing to exercise the pre-emptive right is not sufficient and he has to match the offer, which a Third party has already offered through a Registered Document for Rs. 8,65,00,000/-. Without a payer for Specific Performance of the exercise of alleged pre-emptive right, the plaintiff cannot have the benefit of injunction.