A.O. 25/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 25/2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1259/2011 MAHARUDRA S/O NARHARI KAJALE VS. RADHAKISHAN S/O NANA KAJALE Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant. Mr. M.P. Gandle h/f Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 1st March, 2011 PER COURT: 1 This appeal is filed against the order dated 26th October, 2010 passed by II Jt. Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Beed on Exhibits No.5 and 7 in Special Civil Suit No. 12/2010 which the appellant had filed against the respondents. The appellant's case in short is that he and the respondent No.1 are owners of land Gat No. 140 of village Tandalwadi. He said that he and the respondent No.1 recently purchased this land jointly and that they cultivated the lands jointly. Recently the respondent No.1 sold his share to the respondent No.2. While doing so, he mentioned in the conveyance that his share is separated by mets and bounds and agreed to put the purchaser in possession of his half share, described in the conveyance. The appellant felt aggrieved. He asserted that it was he who could have purchased the share of the respondent No.1. He placed reliance on Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The learned judge of the lower Court rejected this case and rightly held that the appellant does not have right under section 22 against the respondent No.1. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent No.1 are not claiming right to the property from A.O. 25/2011 2 any ancestor. They are not Class-1 heirs of their common ancestors. Thus prima facie the appellant does not have preferential right to purchase the share in the suit land of the respondent No.1. By no stretch of imagination the case could come under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The appellant can not prevent the respondent No.1 from disposing of his share to a person of his choice. ORDER a) The appeal stands dismissed. b) The observations made above are only for the purpose of disposing of this appeal from order and shall not influence the learned judge who would ultimately try the suit. c) Civil Application No. 1259/2011 disposed of. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/ao25.11/1.3.11/