The central legal point established in the judgment is that the preemptive right cannot be exercised in respect of agricultural lands as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and relevant constitutional entries.

1. This appeal is filed as against the decree and judgment dated 17.08.2001 made in A.S.No.31 of 1996 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Thiruppur reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.03.1996 made in O.S.No.26 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Palladam.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants before the trial Court.

3. The Appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration declaring that the suit A schedule property is the property of the second plaintiff(2nd appellant), by way of pre-emptive right and by paying a sum of Rs.7,800/-or any other amount to the defendants/respondents and also restraining the defendants by way of a permanent injunction not to disturb the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedules property. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court by declaring the right of the second plaintiff by way of preemptive right in the suit property. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents/defendants have preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.31 of 1996 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs

4. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this second appeal are as follows:-It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that the suit property was originally owned by one Chinnia Gounder. The said Chinnia Gounder had a son and daughter viz., Ramasamy and Rangammal. The suit property was given to Rangammal by Chinnia Gounder as Sridhana Property. The said Rangammals brother Ramasamy married one Chellathal. The said Ramasamy and Chellathal had two daughters viz., 1) Kuppathal @ Marathal and 2) Kaliammal. The husband of the Kuppathal @ Marathal is the first appellant/first plaintiff. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the son and daughters of the first plaintiff and Kuppathal @ Marathal. Since the said Rangammal, daughter of Chinnia Gounder had no issue, she had settled the suit schedule property by way of a settlement deed dated 11.06.1989, which she got as a sridhana property, in favour of the second plaintiff. As per the Settlement Deed, 3.07-1/2 acres of land in Survey No.323/3-A was settled in favour of the second plaintiff. The balance 0.93-1/2 cents of land in Survey No.323/3-A was in possession and enjoyment of the said Rangammal and Ramasamys wife Chellathal. After the demise of Rangammal and Chellathal, the balance 0.93-1/2 cents of land devolved upon the daughters of Chellathal viz., 1) Kuppathal @ Marathal and 2) Kaliammal. Subsequently, the said Kuppathal @ Marathal also died. Hence, as the share of Kuppathal @ Marathal in survey No.323/3-A devolved upon the plaintiffs as her legal heirs, the entire extent of survey No.323/3-A was in possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff. In the said situation, the plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant Kaliammal had sold the 1/4th of her share in the suit schedule property to the second defendant, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,800/-. The said sale is contrary to the oral understanding between the plaintiff and the first defendant that in the event of the first defendant intending to sell her share, the plaintiff will have a pre-emptive right to buy the said share. The second defendant had also attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, claiming that he had purchased the property from the first defendant. Hence, the present suit is filed for the prayer as stated supra.

5. The case of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants stating that the first defendant had sold only her share to the second defendant. The sale executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is true and the plaintiffs have no right to question the same. Absolutely there was no need to execute a sh