(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 1480 OF 2005 Ramesh @ Raghunath Kondiram Bhagat, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Trading and Agriculture, R/o. Bhagat Building, .. Appellant Dane Dabara (Bazar), (Original Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. plaintiff) versus 1. Chandrakant s/o. Dhondiram Bhagat, Age : 63 years, Occupation : Trading and Agriculture. 2. Ramesh s/o. Dhondiram Bhagat, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Trading and Agriculture. 3. Smt. Anjanabai Dhondiram Bhagat (Since deceased) (since Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Respondent no.3 through them) Respondent nos.1 and 2 are .. Respondents R/o. Bhagat Building, (Original Dane Dabara (Bazar), Ahmednagar, defendants) Dist. Ahmednagar. ....................... (2) Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. L.B. Pallod, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Respondent no.3 died. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for respective parties, extensively. 2. The concurrent findings recorded against the plaintiff are questioned in the Second Appeal. 3. Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits, the substantial question of law in the matter would be, "Whether the courts were justified in ignoring Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, providing (3) preferential right to acquire property, in its letter and spirit ? " 4. Basically, though the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant illustrate, the plaintiff to be a family member, staking claim in terms of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, however, before both the courts, the record rebelled against the plaintiff. The plaintiff canvassed that the plaintiff is son of pre-deceased son, who is Class-I heir as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This is not established. The plaintiff is not son of predeceased son because the partition was effected between Tukaram and Babaji in the year 1955 and after their demise, there was another partition between legal representatives of Kondiram and Dhondiram i.e. sons of Tukaram and Babaji, respectively. The courts found, the plaintiff could not be said to be a son of predeceased son. Consequently, the preferential right sought by the plaintiff could not be entertained. It is informed, there is common staircase in the building which is in occupation of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's rights will be affected. However, even if this is the position, the plaintiff will have to adjust equities with the respondents, defendants and for that purpose, the respondents are apparently from the same brotherhood. However, there is a sale of the property by respondent, Anjanabai, in favour of Bajrang on 15-5-2000. (4) 5. The Second Appeal does not project any substantial question of law to be formulated. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa1480