1 2025:CGHC:43554-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 329 of 2017 1 - Satish Sejpal (Died) Through LRs- 1.1 - Sunita Sejpal W/o Late Satish Sejpal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Quarter No. 8-B, Street No.32, Sector-7, Bhilai, Police Station Kotwali, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Ankur Dhiman S/o Late Satish Sejpal, Aged About 28 Years R/o Quarter No. 8-B, Street No. 32, Sector-7, Bhilai, Police Station Kotwali, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Chanchal Ben Shah W/o Late Ramji Shah, Aged About 75 Years R/o 19/4, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Defendant No.1 2 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Defendant No.2 3 - Anil Dabra S/o Asandas Dabra, R/o Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, C/o Shankar Glass Center, 63/ B, Shastri Market, Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh .......… Defendant No.3 ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, Advocate Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.09.02 11:18:34 +0530 2 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No.1&3 : None Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (28.08.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal , J. 1. The original appellant/plaintiff Satish Sejpal (who died during the pendency of this appeal) preferred the instant First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of judgment and decree dated 18.04.2017 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Durg (CG) in Civil Suit No.03A/2014 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for pre- emption right and permanent injunction was dismissed. (Parties hereinafter will be referred as per the ranking given and status shown in the suit before the trial Court.) 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is that the respondent/defendant No.1 was the landlord of the suit accommodation/property/shop and the appellant/plaintiff was the tenant. Defendant No.1 had told him that the lease period was to be renewed and after renewal she would sell the said shop in his name. Meanwhile, defendant No.1 issued an advertisement for sale of the suit shop which the plaintiff was willing to purchase for which he paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. The lease of the suit accommodation expired and it was renewed. Thereafter, despite repeated requests by the plaintiff, the sale was not made by respondent No.1 and ultimately the suit was filed on 12.12.2013 before the trial Court. After filing of the suit, 3 on 03.03.2014, defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 to alienate the plaintiff from the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for a right of pre-emption and permanent injunction over the suit property. 3. The respondent/defendant No.1, in her written statement denying the averments in the suit stated that he had never entered into any such agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit shop. The suit shop was sold by her to defendant no.3 and which was registered in favour of defendant no.3 on 03.03.2014. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned trial Court in paragraph-12 of its judgment has framed as many as 8 issues and answered accordingly, which state as under: वाद-प्रश्न निनष्कर्ष 01. क्या वाद वादभूनि क अग्रक्रयाअधिकर क तहत प्रथ खरदन, क्रया करन क अधिकर ह$? “नह'” 02. क्या वाद स्थया निनर्षज्ञा क, सहयात प्रप्त करन क अधिकर ह$? “नह'” 03. क्या प्रनितवाद क्र.-02 द्वार प्रनितवाद क्र.-03 क न1तरण निकया जान वाद क बं1नकर नह' ह$? “नह'” 04. क्या वाद द6कन स वाद क, निकरयादर वार्ष-2012 स सप्त ह चु6क, ह$? “ह8” 05. क्या वाद क दवा पोर्षणया ह$? “नह'” 06. क्या वाद सयावाधि क भूतर प्रस्त6त ह$? “नह'” 07. क्या वाद न वाद क उनिचुत रूपो स ल्या1कन कर उनिचुत रूपो स न्यायाशु6ल्क अद निकया ह$? “ ” नहीं 08. क्या वाद न र-401 छ.ग. नगर पोधिEक अधिनिनया 1956 क पोEन निकया गया ह$? “ ” नहीं 09. सहयात एवा1 वाद व्याया? वाद क दवा अस्वाकर कण्डिJKक क्र1 .-55 क अन6सर 4 5. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff’s tenancy had expired in 2012, therefore, he has no right of pre-emption over the suit property and the suit itself is not maintainable. 6. Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by recording a finding which is perverse to the record as the plaintiff has a right of pre-emption over the suit property. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent/defendant No.1, would support the impugned judgment and decree and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records meticulously. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant/plaintiff is the tenant of respondent/defendant No.1 and the tenancy came to an end in 2012. Thereafter, respondent No.1 advertised the suit accommodation for sale and ultimately sold the same to defendant No.3. Necessary transfer deed was executed on 03.03.2014 with the intervention of the Municipal Corporation i.e. respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. The question for consideration would be whether the plaintiff had a right of pre-emption over the suit property. 10. Section 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act reads as under: 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 5 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. 11. A careful perusal of Section 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act would show that where an interest in any immovable property of an intestate, 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, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. As such, the provision of Section 22(1) would not be applicable in case of Tenancy Rights. In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff is the tenant of respondent/defendant No.1 and it is the case of the plaintiff that he had given rupees one lakh to defendant No.1 but despite that, sale deed was not executed in his favour and defendant No.1 is selling the suit shop to defendant No.3 by the intervention of respondent No.2. Therefore, the provision of Section 22(1) of the Hindu Succession Act relating to right of pre-emption would not be applicable at all in the case of the plaintiff. The remedy of the plaintiff was to file suit for specific performance of the contract, if any. 12. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is absolutely justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and we do not find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 13. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Khatai