https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313141 A family settlement clause requiring written concurrence and giving first preference to brothers was treated as certain and not void for vagueness, with the price capable of meaning fair market value in context. The correspondence showed that a sale offer was made to the plaintiff, but he did not complete the transaction in time. The clause was held to create only a preferential family right, not an enforceable contract for specific performance or a pleaded pre-emption claim. The plaintiff was also estopped from relying on the absence of written concurrence after participating in the process, and the sale was not shown to fail on the ground of unlawful fragmentation. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:11:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313141 A family settlement clause requiring written concurrence and giving first preference to brothers was treated as certain and not void for vagueness, with the price capable of meaning fair market value in context. The correspondence showed that a sale offer was made to the plaintiff, but he did not complete the transaction in time. The clause was held to create only a preferential family right, not an enforceable contract for specific performance or a pleaded pre-emption claim. The plaintiff was also estopped from relying on the absence of written concurrence after participating in the process, and the sale was not shown to fail on the ground of unlawful fragmentation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313141