S.K. MAL LODHA, J. — 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 plaintiffs 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 Ganganager 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:

3. The plaintiff-appellant and defendant No.l (respondent No.2) are real brothers. The plaintiff has stated that they are co-owners and co-sharers 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 alongwith defendant No. 1, he has a right 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 pre-emption. The suit was instituted on June 30, 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar.

4. 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.

5. After trial, the learned Additional Civil Judge, by his judgment dated March 31, 1971 decreed the plaintiffs suit against defendant No.2 and dismissed it against defendant No. 1. It may be stated that the learned Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit on the basis of the findings on issue No.l A. An appeal was preferred by defendant No. 2 and the learned Additional District Judge, Sri-Ganganagar accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout.

6. Before the learned Additional District Judge, on behalf of defendant No. 2, only two contentions were raised, which are as under :

(1) that the plaintiff has failed to fully prove that Amru died after the commencement of the Act and in the absence of such proof, section 22 of the Act is not at all attracted.

(2) that even if it is found that Amru died after the commencement of the Act, section 22 of the Act is not applicable to the case of agricultural land.

The learned Additional District Judge recorded the following findings :

(1) that Amru, father of the plaintiff died on Jeth Sudi Poonam Smt. 2013 (June 23, 1956) after the commencement of the Act, which came into force from June 17, 1956; and

(2) that section 22 of the Act does not apply to the agricultural lands and so the plaintiff has no preferential right to purchase the land in suit.

In view of this, as stated above, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal.

7. I have heared Mr. M.L. Shreemali, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document