The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the context of a property dispute between brothers.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed to set aside the order, dated 29.03.2018, passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2016 by the Principal District Judge, Adilabad confirming the docket order, dated 20.01.2016, made in CFR.No.661 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Adilabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff (“plaintiff” for short), who filed suit, vide CFR.No.661 of 2015 against the respondents herein, who are the defendants (“defendants” for short).

4. The facts, which are necessarily be stated as prelude to the order, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner/ plaintiff, filed suit for declaration against the respondents-defendants, in C.F.R.No.661 of 2015, on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Adilabad, to declare that the plaintiff is having preferential right to purchase the suit schedule property and other reliefs. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are own brothers and their father by name P.Chinnu was owner to an extent of Ac.08-35 cents situated at Bhimsari Village. The father of the plaintiff, during his life time, has allotted Ac.03-00 guntas of land to the plaintiff and Ac.03-00 guntas of land to defendant No.3 and kept Ac.2-35 guntas of land for him and no land was allotted to defendant No.1, as he has gone to his in-law’s house at Arli-T village as illatam son-in law. The father of the plaintiff died intestate. The three brothers i.e. the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 have distributed the property as Ac.2-00 guntas to the plaintiff, Ac.3-00 guntas to defendant No.3 and Ac.3-35 guntas to defendant No.1. It is stated that less land was allotted to the plaintiff, as it was a temporary partition and it was not partitioned with metes and bounds and allotment was made in unequal shares. There was an understanding that allotment was made with unequal shares to continue joint status in their family. There was also oral agreement between the brothers not to transfer of share to any third person. Defendant No.1 transferred his share to defendant No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for cancellation of sale of unequal share by defendant No.1. The Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad by docket order, dated 20.01.2016, rejected the plaint, as there is no cause of action. The trial Court in the said order at penultimate para observed as under:

“On perusal of the contents of plaint found that already partition was made in between parties/brothers and they get their shares and they are enjoying the same since the date of partition as per their version” so there is no question of applicability of Sec.22 of Hindu Succession Act, preferential Right to acquire the property in certain cases” as already properties are partitioned in between them. In view of the same, there is no cause of action to entertain the suit/plaint, hence, the suit/C.F.R./plaint is rejected.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred CMA.No.1 of 2016. The said appeal was dismissed vide impugned order, dated 29.03.2018, confirming the docket order, dated 20.01.2016, made in C.F.R No.661 of 2015 by Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.

6. The point that arises for consideration is; whether the averments of the plaint vide C.F.R.No.661 of 2015 would disclose any cause of action for the plaintiff to file suit for preferential right to purchase the co-sharers land?

7. A perusal of the material on record would disclose that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of preferential right to purchase the suit schedule property against his brothers. The averments of the plaint mainly disclose that during the life time of their father, Ac.03-00 guntas of land was allotted to the plaintiff and Ac.03-00 guntas of land was allotted to defendant No.2 and kept Ac.02-35 guntas of land for him. Howeve