TUKARAM REKHA (REKHU) RATHOD L.RS. KISHAN TUKARAM RATHOD and ORS v. SHAM BALKRISHNRAO SELUKAR and ORS
High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad (Civil)
2025:BHC-AUG:29648
Discusses pre-emption rights, transfer of undivided shares, and procedural aspects of property disputes.
List of Laws: The Hindu Succession Act; The Transfer of Property Act; Code of Civil Procedure
Legal Discussion:
- The Hindu Succession Act: The judgment extensively discusses Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, which deals with the preferential right to acquire property in certain cases. The court interprets this section to determine whether the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 8 and 9 can be treated as Class I heirs. The significance of this interpretation lies in establishing the conditions under which the right of preemption can be exercised. The court examines the status of the family, the time of death, the time when partition opens, the inter se relationship, the manner in which the interest devolves as per Section 6 of the Act, and the existence of co-parcenary or birth right. The court concludes that the plaintiffs have a preferential right under Section 22, reinforcing the importance of Class I heir status in exercising this right. This has practical implications for legal practitioners, highlighting the need to carefully analyze family structures and inheritance patterns when dealing with property disputes involving preemption rights. The key takeaway is the emphasis on establishing the propositus and the status of heirs in relation to that propositus.
- The Transfer of Property Act: The judgment refers to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, concerning the rights of a transferee of an undivided share. The court notes that the defendants-purchasers did not claim partition under Section 44. The court observes that the remedy available to the purchaser of an undivided share is to sue for general partition and seek possession of the purchased share. The court states that the purchasers are entitled to enforce partition as per Section 44, but since they do not have separate possession, it cannot be said that they have perfected title and possession over the suit lands. The court denies any protection under Section 44 to the purchasers. The significance of this interpretation is that it clarifies the limitations on the rights of a purchaser of an undivided share until partition is effected. This has practical implications for property transactions, emphasizing the need for purchasers to actively pursue partition to secure their rights fully. The key takeaway is that mere purchase of an undivided share does not guarantee perfected title and possession.
- Code of Civil Procedure: The judgment discusses Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relates to decrees in pre-emption suits. The court interprets this rule to determine whether the lower courts erred in extending the time for depositing the sale amount. The court holds that it is permissible for the court to specify a day for payment of the purchase money and that the lower courts acted within the law in fixing a 90-day period. The court also states that a conjoint reading of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and Order XX Rule 14 of CPC does not indicate any need for the plaintiffs to seek a declaration for setting aside the sale deeds. The significance of this interpretation is that it clarifies the procedural aspects of pre-emption suits and the court's power to grant time for depositing the purchase money. This has practical implications for lawyers involved in such suits, highlighting the importance of adhering to the timelines prescribed by the court and understanding the interplay between substantive and procedural laws. The key takeaway is that the court has discretion in setting timelines for payment, especially when there is a stay on the execution of the decree.