IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the receipt of property by way of gift does not constitute inheritance as heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, does not fulfill the requirements of Section 22 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed the present application, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), with a prayer to reject the plaint.

2. The application has been moved in the above titled suit, filed by the plaintiffs, under the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for preemption of share of the plaintiffs over the suit property/land, by declaring that the plaintiffs have a preferential right, as against defendants No. 1 and 2.

3. The suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiffs have asserted that they are co-owners and co-sharers in possession of the land, comprised in khata khatauni No. 85/144, bearing khasra No. 3, total measuring 01-22-02 hectares, situated at Muhal Bhatanwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., as per the jamabandi for the years 2015-16. The suit land is stated to be joint in nature and no partition, according to the plaintiffs, has taken place between the plaintiffs and the other co-sharers, till date.

4. The suit property is stated to be an ancestral property, wherein, the plaintiffs also have coparcenary rights. According to the plaintiffs, apart from that, the grandmother of the plaintiffs, Smt. Sangat Kaur, widow of late Shri Santa Singh, had given a share of her right in the property to the plaintiffs, by way of gift deed, which was registered on 6th September, 2013, in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 3 and vide another document, registered on 6th September, 2013, the share was also gifted to plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 4, 5 and 6. Mutation in this regard is also stated to have been sanctioned.

5. Asserting the fact that the plaintiffs are the coparceners and having the right in the entire suit land, the plaintiffs have pleaded their right, under Section 22 of the Act.

6. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendants No. 1 and 2, on 5th November, 2022, have purchased the part of the joint suit land and thereafter, they have got approved the sub-division of the suit land into plots from the competent authority. While obtaining the requisite permission, defendants No. 1 and 2 are stated to have forged the affidavit of plaintiffs, dated 2nd February, 2023, by virtue of which, the plaintiffs have allegedly given no objection. While doing so, defendants No. 1 and 2 are also stated to have obtained the valuable portion abutting to the road, in their favour. In this regard, mutation No. 294 was sanctioned and entered in the revenue record.

7. All these facts have been pleaded to claim the relief, in terms of Section 22 of the Act.

8. On the basis of the above facts, the relief, by way of decree of declaration, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, declaring sale deed No. 3433/22, dated 3rd November, 2022; sale deed No. 3452/22, dated 7th November, 2022, and sale deed No. 3503/2022, dated 15th November, 2022, in respect of the suit land, as null and void, has been sought.

9. In addition to this, the plaintiffs have also sought the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from selling, alienating or creating any third party right or interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs have also sought the relief of preemption/preferential right to purchase the land sold by defendants No. 3 to 6, vide sale deed, referred to above.

10. In the said case, an application, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed, on the ground, that Santa Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the lis, was owner of the suit property. He expired on 28th January, 2001. During his lifetime, he had executed a Will, regarding the suit property, in favour of his widow, Sangat Kaur, by bequeathing 291 biswa and 10 biswa in favour of his daughter, Pritam Kaur. Mutation was sanctioned, accordingly, on 12th June, 2001.

11. These facts have been pleaded, in the application, to demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not succeeded t