JUDGMENT This is plaintiff's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiff filed the suit for transfer of 750 sq.ft. of land by defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Civil Judge, Class-II, Betul, by judgment and decree dated 3.5.1982 passed in Civil Suit No. 12A/1980, dismissed the suit. Plaintiff aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the District Judge, Betul, by judgment and decree dated 20.12.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7A/1982 dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal. By order dated 29.8.1989, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the provisions of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, imposes a limitation and disability on the ownership of a property in individual share to the extent that it restricts the owner's right of sale to a third person and compels him to sell the property to the person belonging to the heirs of Class-I of the Schedule in exercise of right of pre-emption under the statute?" According to the plaintiff, land having an area of 300 sq.ft. of Nazul Seat No. 27, Plot No. 11/1 situated at Betul Ganj was recorded in the name of plaintiffs father Nandlal and his brother Laxmichand. Nandlal died in the year 1972 and thereafter on partition, 750 sq.ft. of land fell in share of the plaintiff and equal area fell in share of his brother Mahendra Kumar. His brother Mahendra Kumar proposed to sell his share of land in favour of defendant No. 1 and on ascertaining the same, the plaintiff gave him notice that the property being ancestral property, he was prepared to purchase the same on consideration of Rs. 5000/-. According to the plaintiff, on 21.2.1979, defendant No. 2 sold the property to defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- . On the basis of the aforesaid pleading, plaintiff filed the suit that defendant No. 2 be directed to execute sale deed in respect of the suit land after receiving consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. Suit was heard exparte against defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement has stated that 750 sq.ft. of land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 and he has executed the sale deed in his favour. 5,000/-. Suit was heard exparte against defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement has stated that 750 sq.ft. of land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 and he has executed the sale deed in his favour. His stand further is that plot in question is not an ancestral property as according to the plaintiff himself, partition of the property had already taken place. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, trial Court framed various issues and on consideration of the materials found that the plaintiff has no preferential right to purchase the land sold by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. It further found that the plaintiff did not approach the defendants for the said purchase. Aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the lower appellate Court in appeal. Shri Naolekar, appears on behalf of the appellant whereas Mr. Dixit represents respondent No. 1. Mr. Naolekar appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the property being an intestate, plaintiff who is the brother of defendant No. 2 has preferential right to purchase the land from defendants No. 2. Mr. Dixit appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 however submits that the property is not an intestate property and hence provisions of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is wholly inapplicable. It is relevant here to state that according to the plaintiff himself, partition had taken place between him and his brother defendant No. 2 in which 750 sq.ft. of land was allocated to them. Further the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff did not intimate to the defendants for purchase of the land. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the provisions of Sec. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is inapplicable. Substantial question of law framed is thus answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. In the result, I do not find any merit in appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.