BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) BY an order dated 21. 4. 2003 this Court had directed that the following issue be decided as a preliminary issue:- "whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the instant suit" OPP" the issue has arisen because the plaintiffs are seeking to enforce their alleged preemptive right to purchase the undivided share of defendant No. 1 on the basis of the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said section reads as under:-"22. Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases.- (1) Where after the commencement of this Act, 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, devolve upon two or more heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. (2) The consideration for 3which any interest in the property of the deceased may be transferred under this section shall, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, be determined by the court on application being made to it in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not willing to acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application. (3) If there are two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule proposing to acquire any interest under this section, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred. Explanation.- In this section, "court" means the court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situate or the business is carried on, and includes any other court which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. " ( 2 ) UPON a reading of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), it becomes clear that a preferential right to acquire property has been granted to heirs of the intestate specified in Class I. The word "intestate" has been defined in the said Act in Section 3 (g ). " ( 2 ) UPON a reading of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), it becomes clear that a preferential right to acquire property has been granted to heirs of the intestate specified in Class I. The word "intestate" has been defined in the said Act in Section 3 (g ). A person is deemed to die intestate in respect of property of which he or she has not made a testamentary disposition capable of taking effect. In the present case, the "intestate" is one late Mr R. R. , kumria. He died on 22. 5. 1962 leaving behind five Class I heirs: Smt. Savitri kumria (widow), Shri S. P. Kumria (son), Shri Sudershan Kumria (son), Smt Urmila kalia (daughter) and Smt Nirmala Sirba (daughter ). Smt. Savitri Kumria also died on 25. 5. 1972. The daughters i. e. , Smt. Urmila Kalia and Nirmala Sirba have relinquished their entire shares in favour of their brothers Shri S. P. Kumria and Shri Sudershan Kumria. Thus, the position on the death of Smt. Savitri kumria on 25. 5. 1972, was that there were only two surviving Class I heirs of shri R. R. Kumria and they were the only owners of their equal undivided shares in the entire property left by late Shri R. R. Kumria. The said Shri Sudershan kumria also died on 24th January, 1994 leaving behind his widow Smt. Kusum kalia, Son (Mohit Kumria) and daughter (Ms Ratna Kumria), who are arrayed as plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The suit was initially filed by these plaintiffs when the defendant No. 1 (Shri S. P. Kumria) was alive. The suit was filed because, according to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 (S. P. Kumria) had sold his undivided share to the defendant No. 2 by virtue of a registered Sale deed dated 17. 10. 2001. Immediately thereafter, the suit was instituted on 8. 11. 2001 and shortly thereafter, i. e. on 17. 11. 2001, Shri S. P. Kumria, who was a bachelor, passed away. He left behind as his legal heirs the present plaintiffs and the two sisters, Smt Urmila Kalia and Smt Nirmala Sirba, who have been brought on record by virtue of the order dated 11. 7. 2005. 11. 2001 and shortly thereafter, i. e. on 17. 11. 2001, Shri S. P. Kumria, who was a bachelor, passed away. He left behind as his legal heirs the present plaintiffs and the two sisters, Smt Urmila Kalia and Smt Nirmala Sirba, who have been brought on record by virtue of the order dated 11. 7. 2005. ( 3 ) AN objection was raised by the defendant No. 2 that the present suit is not maintainable because the plaintiffs have no locus standi for maintaining such a suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, however, submitted that the plaintiffs clearly had locus standi. She submitted that when late Shri R. R. Kumria died, Shri Sudershan Kumria was admittedly a Class I heir. The plaintiffs are the Class I heirs of Shri Sudershan Kumria. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the son of a pre-deceased son is recognised as class I heir as per the Schedule to the said Act. She submitted that the position of the plaintiff No. 2 as on the date when the cause of action arose, would be the same as that of a son of a pre-deceased son of late Shri R. R. Kumria inasmuch as the plaintiff No 2 s father Sudershan Kumria has also passed away on 24. 1. 1998. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants states and submits that a plain reading of Section 22 along with the Schedule to the said act would show that the right of preemption has been given only to the Class I heirs of the intestate as defined under the Act. In the present case, Shri R. R. Kumria is the instate and the plaintiffs are not the Class I heirs of Mr R. R. Kumria. He submitted that had Shri Sudershan Kumria been alive, he could have claimed the benefit of Section 22 of the Act because he was clearly a Class I heir of late Shri R. R. Kumria, the intestate. He further submitted that since shri Sudershan Kumria is no longer alive the benefit of Section 22 cannot be extended to his heirs and it has to be limited only to Class I heirs of the instate in question i. e. late Shri R. R. Kumria. He further submitted that since shri Sudershan Kumria is no longer alive the benefit of Section 22 cannot be extended to his heirs and it has to be limited only to Class I heirs of the instate in question i. e. late Shri R. R. Kumria. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the position is not so simple because no partition took place between Shri S. P. Kumria and Shri sudershan Kumria for all these years. Had a partition taken place, then of course, the plaintiffs would have no case but because the partition had not taken place, the preferential right given to Shri Sudershan Kumria would also enure to the benefit of his Class I heirs. She further submitted that had the situation been the reverse, i. e. , had the plaintiffs sold their undivided shares to defendant No. 2 and had the defendant No. 1 been alive, he could have maintained an action for preemptive right to purchase under Section 22 of the said Act. Therefore, according to her, when the converse could be done then the plaintiff would also be entitled to maintain such an action. .