The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to agricultural land and the preferential right of heirs to acquire property to prevent fragmentation of the estate.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Una in Civil Appeal No. 19/2012, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Una, District Una in case No. 183 of 1996 is affirmed.

2. This appeal when listed for admission/hearing on 26.11.2015, the following order came to be passed:

“Learned Counsel, representing the appellants-plaintiffs, submits that a similar matter, RSA No. 258 of 2012, Roshan Lal versus Pritam Singh, involving the identical question of law referred to a Larger Bench by a Coordinate Bench of this Court is pending disposal before the Larger Bench. List after the question of law referred to the larger Bench is decided.”

3. The Division Bench of this Court has now decided the question of law referred to in Roshan Lal’s case supra vide judgment dated March 01, 2018.

4. Now if coming to the factual matrix, the appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for possession by way of preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of the suit land entered in the land measuring 6 Marlas being 1/6 share of land measuring IK-19 Mls. In Khewat No. 806, Khatoni No. 1920 Khasra Nos. 23143, 2322, 2324, two rooms Kharposh standing over Khasra No. 2313, situated in village Khad, Tehsil and district Una (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’) to the extent of half shares on payment of Rs.15,000/-, the sale consideration to the defendants.

5. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 on the death of their father Sarna had inherited the suit land in equal shares. The brother of the plaintiff, Pritam the defendant No. 2, has disposed of his share including the constructed abadi to defendant No. 1 vide sale deed No. 628 dated 28.5.1996 (wrongly mentioned as 28.5.1995 in the plaint). The plaintiff being joint owner and having agricultural interest in the suit land as well as preferential rights to this property coupled with the factum of willing to purchase the same on payment of the determined sale consideration aggrieved by the sale thereof in favour of defendant No. 1 has filed the suit for possession thereof on payment of the sale consideration, on the grounds, inter alia, that he is still in possession of the land and also the constructed abadi.

6. The suit was resisted and contested by defendant No.1 on the grounds, inter alia, that the same is not maintainable nor the plaintiff has locus standi and cause of action to file the same. Also that, the land in dispute was not joint and rather defendant No. 2 was having all rights to dispose of his share to them.

7. In view of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff has preferential right to acquire the suit property and to get possession as alleged? OPP

2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his act and conduct? OPD

6. Relief.

8. After holding full trial and affording opportunity of being heard to the parties on both sides, learned trial Court while answering Issue No. 1 has concluded that the plaintiff led no evidence to show that he offered to purchase the share of defendant No. 2 but the said defendant declined to sell the same to him. Issue No. 1, as such, was answered against the plaintiff, whereas the remaining issues against the defendants. The suit was ultimately dismissed. Learned lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court.

9. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree has been questioned on several grounds, however, mainly that the evidence available on record has not been appreciated in its right perspective when as per the