This case examines the right of pre-emption among Class I heirs in Hindu succession when property devolves upon them. The appellants, heirs of Sushilabai, filed suit to assert their statutory right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to pre-empt the sale of shares by other co-heirs. The judgment elaborates on the application of Section 22, underscoring that only Class I heirs of a Hindu male intestate can claim such a right. Additionally, the court concluded that the appellants lost their right due to prior rejection of offers, the lack of testamentary inheritance, and non-applicability to property from a Hindu female's estate. The counter-claim by co-heirs for partition was granted, reinforcing the procedural requirements under the Partition Act and CPC, where pre-emption rights and claims are limited.

1. Parties Involved:

• Appellants: Smt. Sumati @ Asha and others (heirs of Late Anil Subhedar).
• Respondents: Yashodhara Wdo Sunil Subhedar and others (heirs of Kashinath Subhedar).

2. Subject Property:

• The dispute involved Plot No. 21, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur, initially purchased by Sushilabai Subhedar.

3. Disputed Sale and Claims of Pre-emption:

• Respondent heirs sold shares to a third party without offering the right of first refusal to appellants.
• Appellants claimed a right of pre-emption under Section 22, Hindu Succession Act, asserting preference as co-heirs.

Legal Provisions and Acts Involved:

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956

• Section 22: Provides Class I heirs a conditional pre-emptive right to purchase another co-heir's share in inherited immovable property.

2. Partition Act, 1893

• Section 4: Limits pre-emption rights to instances where an outsider files a suit for partition.

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• Section 100: Limits the High Court's interference in concurrent factual findings by lower courts unless there is a significant legal or procedural error.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Applicability of Section 22: Pre-emption rights under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act apply only to Class I heirs of a Hindu male intestate; they do not extend to property of a Hindu female.

2. Intestate Succession Limitations: Succession to the estate of a Hindu female, governed by Section 15 of the Act, does not provide the right of pre-emption, nor do these heirs qualify as Class I heirs in the statutory sense required by Section 22.

3. Doctrine of Pre-emption Limitation: The appellants lost their right of pre-emption through prior refusal of offers from respondents, thereby invalidating subsequent claims.

4. Partition and Pre-emption Rights under the Partition Act: As no suit for partition was filed by the third-party purchaser, Section 4 of the Partition Act could not be invoked by appellants to assert pre-emption.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had no right of pre-emption under the Hindu Succession Act. It further upheld the partition claim by respondents, stating that appellants, not being Class I heirs of a Hindu male, were outside the ambit of Section 22 rights. The court also emphasized the procedural finality under CPC Section 100, reinforcing that concurrent findings without procedural error are binding.

Subjects:

Hindu Succession Act, Pre-emption Rights, Partition Act, Testamentary Succession, Class I Heirs, Co-heir Rights