IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 146 of 2010

PAAN SINGH TOMAR

Versus

BHAGIRATH SHARMA (DELETED) THROUGH LRS A.

HARISHANKAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri N.K.Gupta Senior Advocate with Shri Saket Sharma- Advocate for the

applicant.

None for the respondents.

ORDER Ahmed. Accordingly, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration of title, enforcement of preferential right, and for correction of the revenue records against respondents No.2 to 6 as well as Bashir Ahmed. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 18/09/1993 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Gohad, District Bhind, and it was held that respondent No.1 has a preferential right to purchase the share of Hakim Singh and sale-deed dated 19/02/1988 executed in favour of Bashir Ahmed was set aside. It is submitted that thereafter respondent No.1 did not take any step to get the sale-deed executed and ultimately, Hakim Singh sold the property in dispute to applicant by registered sale-deed dated 22/08/2003 for a consideration amount of Rs.83,700/-. It is submitted that thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 22(2) of the Hindu Succession Act for enforcement of his preferential right, and by the impugned order the Trial Court has declared the sale-deed executed in favour of applicant as null and void and has directed that respondents No.2 to 6 shall execute a sale-deed in favour of respondent No.1 on payment of a consideration amount of Rs.10,000/-.

This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the

order dated 15/11/2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Gohad, District Bhind in MJC No.10/2008, by which an application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 22(2) of the Hindu Succession Act has been allowed, and sale- deed dated 22/11/2003 has been set aside, and non-applicants No. 2 to 6 have been directed to execute a sale-deed in favour of respondent No.1 for a

consideration amount of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by

counsel for applicant that respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 6 are related to each other and undisputedly, respondent No.1 has a preferential right to purchase the property in dispute. Earlier, by registered sale-deed

th

dated 19/02/1988, Hakim Singh, who had 1/4 share after the death of his father Harvilas had sold the property in dispute to one Bashir

3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that initially in the year 1993, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and his preferential right to purchase the property in dispute was adjudicated in his favour. However, for the next ten years, he did not take any step. Furthermore, as required under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, it was also obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to determine the cost of the property, which has not been done by the Trial Court.

4. None appears for respondents though served.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as under:-

"22. Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases.—

(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others, devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. (2) The consideration for which any interest in the property of the deceased may be transferred under this section shall, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, be determined by the court on application being made to it in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not willing to acquire it fo