LAWS(RAJ)-1980-8-29

JEEWANRAM Vs. LICHMADEVI

Decided On August 11, 1980
JEEWANRAM Appellant
V/S
LICHMADEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the appellate judgment and decree dated November 26, 1971 of the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's suit for possession of land against the defendant No. 2 on preferential right to acquire it on payment of purchase money of Rs. 10,000/- was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar on March 31, 1971 and it was dismissed against the seller (defendant No. 1).

(2.) As this appeal raises an important question of law regarding interpretation and scope of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act (No. XXX of 1956) (for short 'the Act' hereafter), only those facts which are necessary for its determination are stated below: The plaintiff-appellant and defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2) are real brothers. The plaintiff has stated that they are co-owners and cosharers of the agricultural lands situate in village 1 A. M. P. described in para 3 of the plaint, The land in suit had devolved on them after the death of their father through intestate succession. Defendant No. 1 sold the land in suit to defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 1) for Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiff had no knowledge about the same. The case of the plaintiff is that he being co-sharer and co-owner of the land in suit along with defendant No. 1, he has a riant to acquire it from defendant No. 2 by way of pre-emption on payment of Rs. 10,000/-. It was claimed that as they had got this land from their father after his death through intestate succession, the plaintiff has a preferential right to purchase it in comparison to defendant No. 2. He, therefore, prayed for a decree for possession on the basis of the right of preemption. The suit was instituted on June 30, 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge. Sri Ganganagar.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 resisted the suit on various grounds. Suffice it to state for the decision of this appeal that it was denied that the plaintiff has a right to pre-empt the land in suit or that he has any preferential right to purchase it. The written statement was filed on September 16, 1969. A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff on October 8. 1969. reiterating that the plaintiff is entitled to purchase this land through pre-emption and that at any rate, he has a preferential right.