Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act - Confers a preferential right of preemption to co-sharers or co-heirs in certain property transactions, primarily against other co-sharers or co-heirs, not against outsiders. Its applicability depends on the absence of a partition among the co-sharers; if partition has occurred, the right generally ceases to exist. Several cases highlight that the right of preemption under Section 22 is statutory and arises only in specific circumstances, such as undivided shares and co-sharer transactions. ["Abhijit Joy Ghosh VS Amit Kumar Ghosh - Calcutta"], ["GANDHI AMMAL(DIED) vs AMMATCHI @ KOOTHADICHI - Madras"], ["Manjeet Kaur VS Devinder Singh - Himachal Pradesh"], ["G. VENKATESH vs G. SRINIVASAN - Madras"], ["SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka"], ["SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka"]
Preemption Right Termination Post-Partition - The prevailing legal view indicates that once a partition is effected, the right of preemption under Section 22 typically ends. Courts have consistently held that preemption rights are only available before partition or when the property remains undivided. If the property has been partitioned, and shares are allocated, the statutory preemption right does not survive. For example, courts have rejected preemption claims after oral or actual partition, emphasizing that the right is limited to undivided co-sharers. ["GANDHI AMMAL(DIED) vs AMMATCHI @ KOOTHADICHI - Madras"], ["SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka"], ["Abhijit Joy Ghosh VS Amit Kumar Ghosh - Calcutta"]
Legal Principles and Case Law - Case law, such as the Nagammal case, clarifies that the right of preemption under Section 22 is only available against co-sharers or co-heirs and not against outsiders, and it is extinguished upon partition. Courts have scrutinized whether the transaction was concluded before or after partition, with the consensus that preemption rights are not available post-partition. The courts also emphasize that the right is statutory and not a mere contractual or moral right. ["GANDHI AMMAL(DIED) vs AMMATCHI @ KOOTHADICHI - Madras"], ["SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka"], ["Manjeet Kaur VS Devinder Singh - Himachal Pradesh"], ["SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka"]
Impact of Partition Cases - The case law demonstrates that the end of the preemption right is closely linked to the occurrence of partition. Once the property is partitioned, the statutory right under Section 22 generally terminates, and subsequent transactions are outside its scope. Courts have consistently held that the right is limited to undivided co-shares and is not applicable to alienations made after partition. ["Abhijit Joy Ghosh VS Amit Kumar Ghosh - Calcutta"], ["G. VENKATESH vs G. SRINIVASAN - Madras"], ["Kulangara Abdul Khader VS Dhashayani - Kerala"], ["SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka"]
The legal consensus across multiple judgments indicates that Section 22 preemption rights end after the property has been partitioned. The right is inherently tied to undivided co-shares, and once partition occurs, the statutory preemption right ceases to exist. Courts have reiterated that the right is not perpetual and does not extend to transactions made post-partition, aligning with the statutory intent and case law principles. Therefore, the end of preemption rights following partition is well-established in case law.
References:- Abhijit Joy Ghosh VS Amit Kumar Ghosh - Calcutta- SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka_HC_KAHC020058252020- Tukaram S/o Rekha (Rekhu) Rathod vs Sham Balkrishanrao Selukar - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1713- GANDHI AMMAL(DIED) vs AMMATCHI @ KOOTHADICHI - Madras- SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWA - Karnataka_HC_HCMA010833122016- Kulangara Abdul Khader VS Dhashayani - Kerala- Raj Pal (deceased) Through Lr Ram Kumar VS Mahinder Singh - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 2065
In family property disputes among Hindus, the right of preemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 often plays a crucial role. This provision grants co-heirs a preferential right to purchase a co-heir's share before it is sold to an outsider, aiming to keep property within the family and prevent strangers from joining joint ownership. But a common question arises: Does the Section 22 preemption right end after partition case law?
The answer, backed by consistent judicial interpretations, is generally yes. Once a partition occurs among co-heirs, this preferential right typically extinguishes. This blog post delves into the legal principles, landmark case laws, exceptions, and practical steps, drawing from established precedents. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 22 states that when a Hindu heir proposes to transfer their interest in joint family property, other co-heirs have a right of preemption. The objective is clear: to prevent the heirs other than transferor from being compelled to be in joint enjoyment of property with stranger or other persons with whom they do not wish to associate themselves. RAMDEV YADAV (DEAD) VS VIDYA PRASAD - 2020 Supreme(Chh) 34
However, this right is not absolute. Courts have repeatedly emphasized its limits, particularly post-partition. After partition, each co-heir holds their share as separate, absolute property, removing the joint ownership context that Section 22 protects. Vijay Kumar Pahwa VS Vinod Kumar - Current Civil Cases (2023)Vijay Kumar Pahwa VS Vinod Kumar - Patna (2023)GHANSHYAM VS KU. SANGHMITRA DATTA - Chhattisgarh (2011)
Courts have consistently held that the right under Section 22 cannot be exercised after a partition has taken place among co-heirs. Partition clothes the respective parties with authority to hold their shares independently and absolutely as their separate properties, making preemption inapplicable. RAMDEV YADAV (DEAD) VS VIDYA PRASAD - 2020 Supreme(Chh) 34RAM KUMAR SONI VS PREMBATI (DIED) THROUGH LRS - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 660
In one pivotal case, the court noted: Such right cannot be claimed where the property has already been partitioned. Akkammagari Bheemamma VS Akkammagari Balamma - Current Civil Cases (2009)BHAGIRATHI CHHATOI VS ADIKANDA CHHATOI - Orissa (1988) This principle stems from the legislative intent not to put a clog on the power of alienation on the independent owner of the property. RAMDEV YADAV (DEAD) VS VIDYA PRASAD - 2020 Supreme(Chh) 34
For instance, where brothers partitioned property via an amicable agreement, and one later sold his share, the others could not claim preemption. The court upheld: property in question has already been partitioned among plaintiff and defendant No.2 and his one another brother and they came into possession of their respective shares as per partition. RAM KUMAR SONI VS PREMBATI (DIED) THROUGH LRS - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 660
These rulings underscore that partition transforms joint interests into individual ones, ending preemptive claims. Govindan Nair VS Ramachandran Nair - 2013 Supreme(Ker) 1064
Even before partition, exercising Section 22 rights isn't automatic. Key procedural hurdles include:
Courts dismiss belated or improperly filed claims, as seen in cases where plaintiffs ignored these steps post-transfer. G. VENKATESH, vs G. SRINIVASAN,
While partition generally ends preemption, nuances exist:
Additionally, some courts clarify Section 22 applies to non-agricultural property, as seen in appeals distinguishing land types. SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWAANANTH VENKATRAMAN HAGDE vs RAMACHANDRA LAXMAN KHOD
For those in joint family property:- Act Promptly: If a co-heir plans to sell to outsiders, invoke preemption via suit before partition.- Document Everything: Record partitions clearly to establish separate ownership.- Avoid Delays: Heed the one-year limitation to prevent forfeiture.
In disputes, lower courts sometimes err by ignoring Section 22, but higher courts correct this if partition is proven. SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWAG. VENKATESH, vs G. SRINIVASAN,
The judiciary firmly establishes that Section 22 preemption rights end after partition, prioritizing owners' alienation freedoms post-division. This protects family harmony pre-partition but respects individual rights thereafter. Key takeaways:- Partition extinguishes joint preemption claims. Vijay Kumar Pahwa VS Vinod Kumar - Current Civil Cases (2023)Vijay Kumar Pahwa VS Vinod Kumar - Patna (2023)GHANSHYAM VS KU. SANGHMITRA DATTA - Chhattisgarh (2011)- File separate suits within one year. Aarati Mishra VS Shanti Lata Mishra - Chhattisgarh (2022)- Watch for incomplete partitions or waivers.
Understanding these rules can prevent costly litigation. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your case, as outcomes depend on specific facts.
References:- Vijay Kumar Pahwa VS Vinod Kumar - Current Civil Cases (2023)Vijay Kumar Pahwa VS Vinod Kumar - Patna (2023)GHANSHYAM VS KU. SANGHMITRA DATTA - Chhattisgarh (2011)Akkammagari Bheemamma VS Akkammagari Balamma - Current Civil Cases (2009)BHAGIRATHI CHHATOI VS ADIKANDA CHHATOI - Orissa (1988)G. Jayaraman VS R. Vasudevan - Madras (2021)Aarati Mishra VS Shanti Lata Mishra - Chhattisgarh (2022)C. Rajvel VS C. Muthusamy - Madras (2006)RAMDEV YADAV (DEAD) VS VIDYA PRASAD - 2020 Supreme(Chh) 34RAM KUMAR SONI VS PREMBATI (DIED) THROUGH LRS - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 660C. M. Govindan Nair VS M. Ramachandran NairGovindan Nair VS Ramachandran Nair - 2013 Supreme(Ker) 1064SRI. BASAVARAJ vs SMT. PARVATEWWAANANTH VENKATRAMAN HAGDE vs RAMACHANDRA LAXMAN KHODG. VENKATESH, vs G. SRINIVASAN,
#HinduSuccessionAct, #PreemptionRights, #PropertyPartition
Rejection - Civil Procedure - Order 7 Rule 11, Hindu Succession Act Section 22 - The court interpreted the ... provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that a plaint must disclose a cause of action ... Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and if ... In the case i....
But, the Courts below have wrongly held that the provisions of Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act is not applicable and without considering the right of preemption available in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs respondent Nos.1 and 2 have sold the property to any out side person other than party of the family, the appellants have right of preemption as per Sec....
A preferential right under Section 22 of the Act is available to Class I heirs. Section 22 of the Act reads as follows: "22. ... The suit is filed seeking relief of declarations and perpetual injunction asserting right of preemption under Section 22 of the Act. 8. ... In my considered view that have a preferential #H....
Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act as explained in Nagammal and others case makes it clear that the right of preemption is available only against the co-sharer/coheir. This implies there should not have been any partition of assets among the co-sharers. ... So far as the right of preemption under Section 22 of th....
CPC - Hindu Succession Act - Section 22 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 22 of the ... Fact of the Case: The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession ... Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action under Section 22 of the Hindu ... Asserting the fact that the plaintiffs....
AVINASH CHAND SHARMA reported in [2020 (15) SCC 605], summarized the whole gamut of case law relating to the right of preemption. 20. ... This agreement did not correspond to a pre-emption agreement as provided under Section 22 of the Act. Section 22 of the Act is reproduced herein below: “22. ... The agreement entered into ....
“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 ... The Trial Court decreed the Suit and allowed the partition. ... 3.Whether the Courts below have erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant's right of preemption without consideri....
“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 ... The Trial Court decreed the Suit and allowed the partition. ... 3.Whether the Courts below have erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant's right of preemption without consideri....
Pre-emption - Hindu Succession Act - Section 22(1) - 22(2) - 32 of Kerala Court fees and Suit Valuation ... Act Fact of the Case: The plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption under Section 22(1) ... 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. ... (1) of Section 22. ... conferred by Section 22 (1). ... In the event of allowing the claim under #HL....
The 1/5th amount/Zare Panjam is to be deposited before the framing of issues as per Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 ... 22 of Punjab Preemption Act, is incorrect. ... Section 4 embodies the preexisting law by defining the right as a right of a person to acquire land in preference to other persons in respect of -,ales of agricultural land....
Since partition clothes the respective parties with authority to hold their shares independently and absolutely as their separate properties and it could not be the intention of the legislature to put a clog on the power of alienation on the independent owner of the property. Such right cannot be claimed where the property has already been partitioned. The main object of section 22 of the Act is to prevent the heirs other than transferor from being compelled to be in joint enjoyment of propert....
The main object of section 22 of the Act is to prevent the heirs other than transferor from being compelled to be in joint enjoyment of property with stranger or other persons with whom they do not wish to associate themselves. Such right cannot be claimed where the property has already been partitioned. Since partition clothes the respective parties with authority to hold their shares independently and absolutely as their separate properties and it could not be the intention of the legislatur....
Such a right cannot be claimed where the property had already been partitioned. 17. Sri. Lakshmi Narayan, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submits that the main object of S. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is to prevent the heirs other than the transferor from being compelled to be in joint enjoyment of the property with stranger or other persons with whom they do not wish to associate themselves. Section 22 of the Act envisages the right of pre-emption of th....
Section 22 of the Act envisages the right of pre-emption of those cases where partition of the property is not complete. 17. Sri. Lakshmi Narayan, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submits that the main object Sec. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is to prevent the heirs other than the transferor from being compelled to be in joint enjoyment of the property with stranger or other persons with whom they do not wish to associate themselves. Such a right c....
17. Sri. Lakshmi Narayan, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submits that the main object Sec. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is to prevent the heirs other than the transferor from being compelled to be in joint enjoyment of the property with stranger or other persons with whom they do not wish to associate themselves. Section 22 of the Act envisages the right of pre-emption of those cases where partition of the property is not complete. Such a right c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
