- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2074 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: BASAVALINGAMMA, W/O LATE SIDRAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT SOMAGUDDU VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI S ESHWARAPPA S/O SIDDARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT SOMAGUDDU VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. …APPELLANT (BY SRI JAGAN MOHAN M T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGENDRAPPA, S/O LATE SIDDARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST DEAD 2. CHIDANANDAPPA, S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 3. SUB REGISTRAR, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 4. CHANDRAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 5. SIDDALINGAMMA, W/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 6. PREMA, W/O CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, RESPONDENT NO.1, 2, 4, 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT SOMAGUDDU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH B, AGA FOR R3, R2, R4, R5 & R6 ARE SERVED, R2, R5 & R6 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1 V.C.O. DT 06.08.2025) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 42 RULE 1 AND SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 25.10.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 3.6.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.180/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is arising from a concurrent finding in a suit seeking declaration regarding pre-emptive right to purchase the suit schedule properties in the names of the defendants No.1 and 2. The suit is dismissed, so also the First Appeal. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute: One Ningappa was the propositus and his wife was Nanjamma. The couple had 3 sons. Sidramanna- plaintiff's husband, Nagendrappa - defendant No.1 and Ramanna. Sidramanna is no more and the suit is filed by the wife of Sidramanna. Plaint averments would reveal that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to Ningappa - propositus and after his death and death of Nanjamma, the properties in the name of the propositus Ningappa are inherited by three children namely Sidramanna the plaintiff's husband, defendant No.1 and Ramanna who was not made a party to the proceeding. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 3. It is further stated in the plaint that on 08.06.2021 there was a partition between Sidramanna - plaintiff's husband, defendant No.1 Nagendrappa and Ramanna. This partition is not in dispute. 4. In terms of the said partition, the suit properties are allotted to the share of defendant No.1-Nagendrappa. The suit is filed in the year 2008, apparently after the death of the plaintiff's husband on the premise that the plaintiff has preferential right to purchase the property allotted to the share of defendant No.1. 5. Defendants No.1-Nagendrappa and his son defendant No.2 contested the suit. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the properties are sold in favour of defendant No.4. Hence, defendant No.4 also contested the suit after being impleaded as a party. 6. The Trial Court held that preferential right to purchase the property is not available under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'Act of 1956') for two reasons. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 (a) Property is already partitioned among three brothers. (b) In the partition deed, there is a Clause that person to whom property is allotted is free to alienate the property. 7. First Appellate Court also recorded the same finding. Hence, both the Courts have dismissed the suit. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ appellant would submit that the finding of the Trial Court that the right to claim preferential right is available only in favour of Class-I heirs and plaintiff is not Class-I heir is erroneous inasmuch as the plaintiff is the Class-I heir of her husband - Sidramanna. Sidramanna and defendant No.1 were Class-I heirs of Ningappa and suit ought to have been decreed. 9. It is his further submission that notwithstanding the partition of the properties between three brothers, the preferential right to purchase the property is not taken away, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 as such both the Courts are in error in holding that the suit is not maintainable. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 willing to acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application. (3) If there are two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule proposing to acquire any interest under this section, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred." 12. From the language employed in Section 22 of the Act of 1956, it can be noticed that when the property devolves upon two or more heirs specified in Class-I of the schedule and anyone of such heirs proposes to transfer the interest in the properties, the further heirs shall have preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. 13. On considering the averment made in the plaint, it is noticed that the plaintiff has averred that after the division of the properties among three brothers, the parties are enjoying certain easements in the property allotted to the share of the mother. It is further averred that when the plaintiff came to know that defendants No.1 and 2 are making an attempt to alienate the property, the plaintiff - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 offered to purchase the said property and the defendants No.1 and 2 refused to alienate the property. The relevant factor to be considered is the plaintiff herself has admitted that there was a partition on 08.06.2001 between three brothers and in the said partition, the suit properties exclusively was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. 14. Thus, the property is not a joint property as on the date of filing of the suit and the suit is filed after 7 years after the partition. 15. The recital in the partition deed itself would indicate that each person who was allotted a share in the property is free to alienate the property to the person of his choice. This is one of the factors which is taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court while declining the relief to the plaintiffs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31233 RSA No. 2074 of 2013 16. It is also noticed that the Trial Court has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashutosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi @ Parani Devi and Others1. 17. This Court is of the view that because of the partition between the brothers where it is agreed that the person to whom the property is allotted to is free to alienate the property to any other person of his choice, certainly does come in the way of the plaintiff seeking preferential right to purchase the property. 18. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 19. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration, accordingly the Second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 1 AIR 2008 SC 2171