The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of preemptive right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and the requirement for evidence to decide the matter.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.8.2020 passed below Exh-5 and Exh-39 in Special Civil Suit No. 342 of 2015 by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs-appellants came to be dismissed, the original plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal from Order under Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC.

2. The brief facts of the suit of the plaintiffs is that the Suit property including lands, were originally belonging to Hasmukhgauri Babubhai Jekishandas and it was in her possession and she transferred it to Bhupendra Babubhai Zaveri, Kirit Babubhai Zaveri, Bhadresh Babubhai Zaveri, Jitendra Babubhai Zaveri, Pankaj Babubhai Zaveri, Vishnukumar Babubhai Zaveri and Hiren Mahendrabhai Zaveri by way of registered sale-deed dated 1018 dated 7.7.2006. It is alleged that the property was accepted by the beneficiaries for entire family and all the members have equal shares having one-seventh shares. It is contended that parties are Hindus and they have pre-emptive right to purchase the shares of other coparcenar if the other coparcenar wants to sell to third party. According to the plaintiffs, though they have preferential right to purchase the share of other co-owners, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not make any offer regarding the sale of their undivided share to the plaintiffs and they have sold it i.e. defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their undivided shares in joint family property to defendant Nos. 6 to 11 through registered sale deed No. 9921 dated 4.7.2014 against the consideration worth Rs.3,29,54,100/- and revenue entry was mutated vide entry No. 4528 on 9.9.2014. It is alleged that the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos. 3 and 4 contested the mutation entry by filing RTS (Dispute Case) No. 73 of 2014 which came to be rejected by Mamlatdar on 29.4.2015. It is also contended by the plaintiff that they have preferred an Appeal against that order before the Deputy Collector and the same is pending.

2.1 It is also alleged by the plaintiffs that even the defendant No.5 has soled his one-seventh share of undivided joint family property vide registered sale-deed No. 10321 dated 11.7.2014 against consideration worth Rs. 99 Lakh in favour of defendant No.12 and that transaction was also made without first offering it to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs have challenged all these sale transactions on the ground that they have preferential right to purchase i.e. preemptive right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act.

2.2 It appears that during the pendency of the suit, some other transactions have occurred between defendant Nos. 8 & 13 and 14 of selling of two-seventh share of defendant No.8 vide sale-deed No. 10867 dated 2.7.2015, which contains open lands along with constructed Bungalow, outhouses, servant quarters, pool, fencing, etc. The plaintiffs have filed the Suit for declaration and injunction as well as for cancellation of all registered sale deed declared to be as null and void and also consequential relief. Along with plaint, the plaintiffs have also preferred application below Exh-5 for temporary injunction.

2.3 It appears from the record that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have filed their reply at Exh-20 and raised counter claim against the plaintiffs as well as other defendants on the same facts which are narrated in the plaint and also shown their willingness to purchase the share of other defendants and have denied any kind of action by them to sell their shares. They have also filed interim injunction application at Exh-22, which came to be contested by the plaintiffs.

2.4 It also appears that defendant Nos. 6 to 11 have filed their written statement at Exh-25 denying the facts and allegations of the plaintiffs and raised many issues regarding estoppel, delay, laches, etc. They have denied the status of property as joint Hindu family and raised the issue of gift by woman. They have stated that the names of the parties as mentioned in the revenue rec