KAMAL GOEL Vs. PURSHOTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant against the decree and judgment of the Senior Sub-Judge, Kaithal dated 17-8-1993 on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable.

(2.) One Chalti Devi filed the suit for possession of the suit property claiming that she had a preferential right to purchase the suit property under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The said Chalti Devi had two sons namely Purshotam Dass and Mohinder Parkash Bindlish. The suit shop was owned by her two sons Mohinder Parkash Bindlish and Purshotam Dass. Mohinder Parkash Bindlish died on 17-5-1984. His half share in the suit property has been inherited by his widow, children and the mother Chalti Devi who is the plaintiff as his Class-I heirs. The widow and children of Mohinder Parkash Bindlish sold their interest in the suit property to the defendant Mohan Lal under a regd sale deed dated 21-2-1985 for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. Chalti Devi filed the suit on 11-2-1986 claiming that she had a preferential right to purchase the share of the widow and children of Mohinder Parkash Bindlish since she was also a Class-I heir of Mohinder Parkash Bindlish. Therefore, she claimed the suit to enforce her preferential right conferred on her under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act against the purchaser. She did not implead her widowed daughter-in-law and grand-children as parties to the suit.

(3.) The defendant who purchased the suit property from the widow and children of Mohinder Parkash Bindlish resisted the suit contending that an offer was made to Chalti Devi, but she did not purchase the property and, therefore, the same was sold to him and he cannot be dispossessed.