SHOBHA RANI Vs. PARSHOTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 10. 11. 1980 passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Karnal who dismissed the application of the petitioners Smt. Sobha Rani and Smt. Pushpa Rani daughters of Sh. Pran Nath, Advocate, under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :both the petitioner Smt. Shobha Rani and Smt. Pushpa Rani are the daughters of Shri Pran Nath, Advocate, deceased. Smt. Shila Wanti, respondent No. 2 is the widow, while Sarvshri Balraj and Ranbir Singh are the sons of Pran Nath, Advocate, who died on 20. 2. 1971 intestate. The subject-matter of the dispute is the residential property situated at Subhash Colony, Karnal, which was held by the deceased at the time of his death. After his death, the property has been sold by Smt. Shila Wanti, respondent No. 2 i. e. the widow of deceased as per registered sale deed dated 2. 6. 1978 in favour of Parshotam Dass, respondent No. 1 since deceased now represented by his legal representatives. The sale was executed for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and Smt. Shila Wanti respondent No. 2 represented herself to be the sole owner of the said property. The petitioners alleged that the sale to the extent of their 2/5th share in the property was void ab initio as their mother Smt. Shila Wanti, respondent No. 2 had only l/5th share. It was also asserted by the petitioners that in view of the statutory right conferred upon them under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, they have got a preferential right to acquire 3/5th share in that property belonging to respondents No. 2 to 4. With the above averments, the petitioners prayed for the award of a decree for acquiring the interest of respondents No. 2 to 4 to the extent of 3/5th share on payment of proportional price and for declaration that the sale with regard to the remaining 2/5th share belonging to them was a nullity.

(2.) THE above petition was resisted by respondent No. 1 Purshotam Dass who raised certain legal objections as to the maintainability of the action. It was also pleaded that the application was not maintainable in the present form as the petitioner was required to file a civil suit, the court of Senior Sub Judge at Karnal, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

(3.) ON the conclusion of the proceedings, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. However, issue No. 2 was decided against the petitioners and it was held that their petition under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act was not maintainable. They were required to file a regular suit for possession. Resultantly, the application was dismissed vide order dated 10. 11. 1980. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision which is being disposed of with the assistance of Shri M. S. Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Y. K. Sharma, Advocate, who gave appearance on behalf of respondents, and with their assistance I have gone through the record of this case. 5. Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows :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 in the property 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. Explanation.- In this section, "court" means the court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situate or the business is carried on, and includes any other court which the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf.