பிரிக்கப்படாத கூட்டு குடும்பச் சொத்தை மூன்றாம் நபர் வாங்கினால் அந்த சொத்து சட்டரீதியாக செல்லாது.

@Social activist If a third party purchases undivided coparcenary property, the purchase is legally invalid. The Supreme Court has ruled that the other legal heirs have the right to buy back (retake) undivided coparcenary property purchased by a third party under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 22 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 What is the legal status of an undivided coparcenary property purchased by a stranger/outsider?” is an important legal issue that has been discussed in several judgments. If one of the co-heirs of the same family intends to sell undivided property held jointly by them to a stranger, the other co-heirs have a preferential right to acquire that share. Purpose: To protect the unity and property relations of the family so that no outsider enters the family. Legal Basis: Section 22 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 “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… any one of such heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred to any person who is not an heir.” This means: If among the heirs of the same family, if one tries to sell his share to an outsider, the other heirs have the preferential right (Preferential Right / Pre-emption Right). Important Court Judgments: 1. Kuppayee Ammal vs. Arumugha Gounder (Madras High Court, AIR 1990 Mad 73) Judgment: If an outsider buys a share in an undivided joint family property, the other family members have the preferential right to buy back that share under Section 22. 2. Pannalal Bansilal Patil vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1023 The Supreme Court held: The preferential right in Section 22 is a legal right to protect family unity. It was held that as long as the joint property is not divided, even if the outsider buys the property and gets the property right, the family member can buy it back. 3. Thamma Venkata Subbamma vs Thamma Rattamma (1987 (3) SCC 294) The Supreme Court held: A person who is a sharer in a Hindu coparcenary property cannot transfer his share to a stranger without partition. Because the share is undivided, the outsider has no right to the property, but the right becomes clear only after partition. “If one of the heirs sells his undivided interest to a stranger, the other heirs have a preferential right to purchase that share under Section 22.” 4. Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao (1956 SCR 451) Sale without notice to co-heirs violates Section 22. Co-heirs can seek to set aside such sale. https://drive.google.com/file/d/18A_4... #TamilLegal #TamilLaw #LegalAwarenessTamil #MadrasHighCourt #HighCourtJudgment #CivilLawTamil #LimitationAct #Order7Rule11 #FraudCaseTamil #PropertyDisputeTamil #LegalEducationTamil #PattaFraud #ForgeryCase #UDRPatta #CivilSuit #CourtCaseTamil #LawStudentsTamil #AdvocateTamil #TamilJudgmentAnalysis #FraudUnravelsEverything