The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies to proposed transfers for consideration, and a completed gift deed does not trigger the preferential right of acquisition for co-heirs.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal arising out and from judgment and decree dated September 23, 1985, delivered by the district Judge, Tumkur (Sri P. S. Gundawade), allowing the defendant's first regular civil appeal R. A. No. 4 of 1974, from the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1974, delivered by Sri K. P. Kempegowda, Additional Civil Judge, in Original R. A. No. 32 of 1971, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's Original Suit No. 32 of 1971, at the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for decree for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the right of pre-emption, i. e. , right of preferential acquisition of suit property under Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act, i. e. , Act No. 30 of 1956, in respect of one half share in the suit schedule properties and for further direction to defendant 2, that is, respondent 2, to deliver the possession of Items Nos. 1 and 2 of schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed a direction to be given to make enquiries as to future mesne profits from the date of the suit under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil procedure Code, for short, 'code' in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 3, of the suit schedule properties with reference to the share of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff further claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing Item Nos. 4 and 5 against the defendants. The properties involved in the suit have been mentioned in detail in the plaint schedule with the boundaries given therein. According to the case of the plaintiff, Udase gowda, the father of the plaintiff had no male issue and the 1st defendant has been the widow of Udase Gowda and was plaintiffs step mother. According to plaintiffs case, after the death of plaintiffs mother, Udase Gowda married the second time. According to plaintiffs case, after his marriage, plaintiff and her husband-Gujarappa lived with plaintiffs father, who had no male issues. The plaintiffs father, according to the plaintiff died on June 17th, 1961. That after the death of Udase gowda, the 1st defendant succeeded him as his daughter and at that time, all were living in house Item No. 4 of the schedule. The plaintiff further alleged that on the death of Udase Gowda, plaintiff and defendant 1, became entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule property left by Udase Gowda. Plaintiff claimed herself to be managing the affairs of the property. Plaintiff further alleged that Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for short, 'cr. P. C. ' proceedings were initiated by the defendants, but, those proceedings were not necessary to be taken, as the plaintiff was in possession of the land through the tenants. Plaintiffs case is that during the proceedings under Section 145, cr. P. C. , the 1st defendant created a deed in favour of the 2nd defendant styled as a gift deed. According to plaintiffs case, a suit was also filed by 1st defendant, namely, O. S. No. 499 of 1964, on the file of Munsiff, Madhugiri, for declaration of her title and for consequential relief of injunction in respect of suit item No. 4 (the house property ). The suit was it appears, later on, withdrawn by the 1st defendant. That plaintiffs case is that defendant 2, had taken the possession of the suit land Item Nos. 1 and 3 illegally and unlawfully sometimes in January, 1965. That according to the plaintiffs case, first defendant had no right to convey or transfer any of the suit properties to the 2nd defendant and the deed styled as gift deed was really a deed of transfer for consideration to a stranger to the family, and as such, the said transaction, plaintiff claimed was in contravention and in violation of provisions of Section 22 of Hindu Succession act. That as such, plaintiff claimed that as sa