ready and willing to give the share of the other two co-sharers who are his siblings to the extent of their one-third share each in monetary terms. However, in order to do so, exercise of Valuation rather an independent neutral Valuation will have to be done so that there is no ambiguity on the issue of the market value of the flat. The Judgement Debtor who is present in Court has also made another statement through his Advocate that if so desired and if directed by this Court, he is ready and willing to show his bonafides by depositing an amount of Rs.1 Crore in the Court, requested the Court not to proceed with its sale. His Advocate would submit that according to their estimate, the subject flat is worth approximately 4.5 Crores and if the Respondents would accept this valuation, he would deposit Rs.1 Crore immediately to show his bonafides, and even pay the balance to the Respondents as directed. Mr. Upadhyay has refuted the valuation offered by Petitioner and would submit that the subject flat is worth more than 6.5 Crores in value. However Mr. Upadhyay would submit that Respondents are also not in favour of the flat being sold provided their share in terms of the market value of the flat / monetary compensation is given to them. If that be the case, the only exercise required to be done is to ascertain the correct valuation of the subject flat as on date so that the Judgement Debtor can be put to terms to deposit the co-sharers’ share either with them or in this Court and the flat can be saved from auction.
