The central legal point established in the judgment is that a class-I heir's preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to acquire interest in an undivided ancestral property is not sustainable if the heir has alienated their share in violation of the conditions of Section 22 and failed to implead necessary parties in the suit.

1. Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. B. R. Dey, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents had addressed this Court on the previous date on which the matter was heard in part, but there is no representation on behalf of the respondents today before this Court when the matter was called up for hearing.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj in Title Appeal No.5/2003 dismissing the same, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Karimganj in Title Suit No.46/1999.

3. The plaintiff’s case in brief is that the land described in Schedule-I to the plaint originally belonged to his father Late Surendra Kumar Das. Surendra Kumar Das died leaving behind his widow i.e. Lakshmi Rani Das, one son i.e. plaintiff and three daughters including the defendant No.3 as his surviving legal heirs. The father of the plaintiff, during his lifetime, had transferred the Schedule-I property in favour of Lakshmi Rani Das. However, since the plaintiff had become owner of 1/5th share in the Schedule-I land left behind by his father, hence, he had filed Title Suit No.8/1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj against his mother Lakshmi Rani Das and sister i.e. the defendant No.3, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of 1/5th share in the property left behind by Late Surendra Kumar Das and therefore, he had preferential right to purchase the share of the mother and the sister who were the defendants in the said Title Suit. The Title Suit No.8/1996 was decreed ex parte on 12.05.1997. However, the defendant No.3 had acted in violation of the ex parte decree dated 12.05.1997 passed in Title Suit No.8/1996 and executed a registered deed of sale bearing No.2301 dated 11.11.1998 transferring the Schedule-II land in favour of defendant No.1. Since the plaintiff was entitled to a preferential right to purchase the said plot of land from the defendant No.3 being one of the legal heirs of Surendra Kumar Das and in view of the fact that the registered deed of sale had been executed by the defendant No.3 in violation of the judgment and decree dated 12.05.1997, the plaintiff had filed Title Suit No.46/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Karimganj against the present defendants, inter- alia, praying for a decree declaring the registered deed of sale dated 11.11.1998 as void and for other consequential reliefs

4. On receipt of summons the defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and contested the suit by filing joint written statement, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the suit in the present form for want of cause of action and also on the ground of the suit being barred under the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence as well as the law of limitation. The contesting defendants have stated that the father of the plaintiff had transferred his entire property in favour of the mother of the plaintiff i.e. Lakhsmi Rani Das vide registered deed of sale dated 12.05.1982 which fact was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. After having enjoyed the property for more than 13 years the mother of the plaintiff had executed a “baina nama” ( agreement for sale ) dated 16.12.1995 in favour of the contesting defendants agreeing to sell a plot of land measuring 1 ½ kedar for a price of Rs.24,000/- out of which Lakshmi Rani Das had also received a sum of Rs.18,000/- at the time of execution of the “baina nama” pursuant whereto the possession of the said land had also been delivered to the defendants. However, on account of failure on the part of the mother of the plaintiff to execute a registered deed of sale in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, they had filed a suit bearing No.160/1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Karim