The statutory right of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is available only among co-sharers/co-heirs and is extinguished once a partition of assets has occurred between the parties.

J U D G M E N T

Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1997 passed in A.S.No.28 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.02.1996 passed in O.S.No.147 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Shencottah.

1.1 The plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Shencottah, has filed the present Second Appeal. The suit was laid originally as O.S.No.563 of 1989 before the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi, and it was later transferred to the District Munsif's Court, Shencottah and re-numbered as O.S.No.147 of 1993. For narrative convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

1.2 The suit was laid for a decree against the second defendant claiming right of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act vis-a-vis the suit property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and in A.S.No.28 of 1996 filed by the first defendant before the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, there was a reversal in fortune for the plaintiff.

2. The facts may be briefly stated:

 A certain Subbammal had purchased the property in two schedules Vide a sale deed dated 18.03.1948. It comprises of residential buildings bearing Door Nos.95 and 95A.

 Subbammal had two daughters. They are Gandhi Ammal, the plaintiff herein and Ammachi @ Koothadichi, the first defendant.

 While so, Gandhi Ammal was given in marriage to certain Arumuga Konar. Through that marriage, she begot a son by name Arunachalam. He was later examined as D.W.2. Be that as it may, the marriage between Gandhi Ammal and Arumuga Konar was dissolved and thereafter, Arumuga Konar stated to have preferred comfort elsewhere. While so, Gandhi Ammal, the plaintiff herein was left with her son Arunachalam. In due course, Gandhi Ammal came across a certain Saminatha Chettiyar, who at the relevant time was a widower. Both developed interest for each other and this culminated in a marriage and this marriage was an inter-caste marriage. The community to which Gandhi Ammal belongs did not approve the marriage. It harassed her and her son. She was therefore, constrained to leave Ilanji, a small hamlet from where she hailed, and moved to Theni, which is almost 250 kms from Ilanji.

 After all this drama, Subbammal, the mother of the plaintiff, and the first defendant died intestate in 1988. Thereafter, Gandhi Ammal returned to the Village and learnt that the first defendant was afoot to alienate the building bearing Door No.95A to the second defendant. This property is shown as Schedule-I property. Wasting no time, she approached the concerned Sub Registrar to lodge her objection to any proposed transaction involving the property in Schedule-I herein. The statutory authority/the Sub Registry has explained its inability to come to the rescue of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff laid O.P.No.4 of 1989 under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. This was filed on 26.04.1989. Along with this, the plaintiff had also taken out an Interlocutory Application under Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C for an order of interim injunction. It appears that the trial Court had granted an order of injunction. The copies of O.P.No.4 of 1989 and also interim application are available on record as Ext.A.1 and Ext.A.2. However, even before communication of the interim order passed by the trial Court to the first defendant, on 28.04.1989, Vide Ext.A.3 sale deed, the first defendant had sold the property to the second defendant. As the eff