JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal is preferred as against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.2014 made in A.S.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2010 made in O.S.No.179 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

2.The following substantial questions of law are suggested by the appellant.

“1.Whether the Courts below have committed an error in ignoring the principles contained under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, while considering the right of preemption claimed by the appellant?

2.Whether the Courts below have committed an error in rejecting the claim of the appellant's right of preemption, on the sole ground, that there was no pleading to that effect and on the other hand the parties have let in evidence in support of their respective claim?

3.Whether the Courts below have erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant's right of preemption without considering the evidence adduced by him to that effect?”

3.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that both the Courts below has not considered the plea raised by the appellant with regard to the preemptive right.

4.A bare reading of the plaint shows that the appellant/plaintiff has not pleaded anything about the purchase of share and preemptive right. The Trial Court decreed the Suit and allowed the partition. Against which the appellant preferred first appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2013 and the same came to be dismissed holding that there was no plea taken before the Trial Court with regard to the appellant's willingness to purchase the share of the respondents

1 to 4 and claiming his preemptive right.

5.Against which the present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff suggesting the above three substantial questions of law with regard to the preemptive right.

6.When the appellant has not raised any plea before the Trial Court or without any averment in the plaint regarding preemptive right, the Court cannot grant such relief. Therefore, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have rightly decided that without any plea the Court cannot decide the preemptive right. Hence, this Court does not find any error in the judgment passed by the both the Courts below. Therefore, this Court does not find any substantial questions of law that arises for consideration as suggested by the appellant.

7.In view of the above, the present Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

10.11.2022 rst Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order To:

1.The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

2.The District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

rst

10.11.2022