Supreme Court: In an appeal, revolving around long-standing question of whether the preferential right conferred upon Class I heirs under Section 22, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Hindu Succession Act) extends to inherited agricultural land, wherein the First Appellate Court upheld the plaintiff’s preferential right and the High Court affirmed the First Appellate Court’s judgment, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N. Kotiswar Singh**, JJ., upheld the impugned judgments, holding that:
-
Section 22, Hindu Succession Act applies to inherited agricultural land.
-
Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 162, correctly states the law and does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench.
-
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1986) 2 SCC 249, does not invalidate Section 22, Hindu Succession Act.
-
Parliament possessed legislative competence under Entry 5, List III to enact Section 22.
-
Since the plaintiff asserted his preferential right before execution of the sale deed, no separate challenge to the sale deed was necessary.
Background
In the instant matter, a dispute arose among siblings (plaintiff and defendants) who inherited agricultural land from their father, as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. The defendants collectively sold their respective shares in the inherited agricultural land to a third party through a sale deed dated 28 December 2011. Before the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff (respondent herein) had already instituted proceedings on 8 December 2011 seeking enforcement of the preferential right available under Section 22, Hindu Succession Act.
The plaintiff contended that, as a Class I heir, he possessed a statutory preferential right to purchase the shares proposed to be transferred before they could be alienated to an outsider. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the proceedings and argued that Section 22 had no application to agricultural land.
The Civil Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit after relying on Atam Prakash, holding that Section 22, Hindu Succession Act was comparable to Section 15, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913) (Punjab Pre-emption Act) and therefore unenforceable.
On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the civil court’s finding. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Babu Ram, wherein it was expressly held that Section 22 applies even to agricultural land inherited under the Hindu Succession Act.
Further, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, observing that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants approached the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether Section 22, Hindu Succession Act, applies to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs?
-
Whether the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash rendered Section 22 unconstitutional or otherwise inapplicable?
-
Whether Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact Section 22 in relation to agricultural land?
-
Whether the plaintiff was required to challenge the subsequent sale deed separately after instituting proceedings under Section 22?
Legal Framework
At the outset, the Court discussed the historical nature of the right of pre-emption. Referring to earlier decisions, it observed that pre-emption is “a right of substitution exercisable by a person who has a superior right, not a right of re-purchase” (Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah, 1885 SCC OnLine All 123). It also reiterated that although pre-emption is considered “a weak right” [Radhakishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 308 and Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee v. Nilima Rani, (1969) 3 SCC 445], it continues to be enforceable so long as it remains part of the statute book.
Section 22, Hindu Succession Act confers upon Class I heirs a preferential right to acquire the interest of another co-heir who proposes to transfer inherited immovable property or business to a third party.
The Court noted that Section 22, Hindu Succession Act has following ingredients:
1. “this right exists between co-heirs of an intestate succession;
2. it gives a right to one heir, preferential in nature, over the property of other co-heirs in case of alienation to a third party;
3. the section itself provides for the intervention of the Court to enable the co-heir holding the preferential right to seek enforcement thereof, not through a specially laid out procedure, but only through the general procedure for enforcement of a civil right; and
4. the right of pre-emption is to be asserted at a point in time prior to completion of a transaction, by which it is alleged that such a right would be offended”.
Analysis
The Court noted that the principal controversy concerned the relationship between Atam Prakash and Babu Ram. The Court held that the civil court had incorrectly relied upon Atam Prakash. It noted that Atam Prakash declared Section 15, Punjab Pre-emption Act unconstitutional because its classification of persons entitled to pre-emption violated Article 14. It neither examined nor decided the validity of Section 22, Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, reading Atam Prakash as striking down the very concept of statutory pre-emption would amount to “a wholly incorrect reading of the passage”.
The Court cautioned that importing observations made in one statutory context to invalidate an altogether different legislative provision would create “judicially created anarchy” and undermine settled principles governing constitutional review.
The Court further rejected the argument that Section 15, Punjab Pre-emption Act and Section 22, Hindu Succession Act are pari materia. While the Punjab legislation extended pre-emption rights to a broad class of relatives and other persons connected through consanguinity, Section 22 is narrowly confined to Class I heirs inheriting property through intestate succession. Their legislative purpose and scope are therefore fundamentally different.
The Court reaffirmed the correctness of Babu Ram, wherein it was accepted that Section 22 is intrinsically connected with succession and governs only inherited property. Parliament deliberately attached a qualification to succession rights so that inherited family property would, as far as possible, remain within the family. Consequently, the preferential right under Section 22 applies even when the inherited property is agricultural land.
Addressing the constitutional challenge, the Court held that Section 22 derives its legislative competence from Entry 5, List III relating to intestacy and succession. The provision is not primarily concerned with regulating transfers of agricultural land; instead, it qualifies the rights acquired through succession by requiring that an heir first offer the inherited interest to fellow Class I heirs before transferring it to an outsider.
Finally, the Court noted that the plaintiff had asserted his statutory right before the execution of the sale deed. Since the proceedings under Section 22 were already pending when the transfer was effected, there was no requirement to institute an independent challenge to the sale deed.
Concurring Opinion
N. Kotiswar Singh, J., fully agreed with the majority judgment but supplemented the reasoning on legislative competence. He explained that the right created under Section 22 is, in its “pith and substance”, an incident of succession rather than a law governing transfer of agricultural land. The preferential right exists only among Class I heirs who inherit from the same intestate and cannot operate independently of the succession relationship.
The concurrence further pointed out that Entry 5, List III intentionally omits the exclusion of agricultural land that existed under the Government of India Act, 1935. Therefore, Parliament enjoys complete competence to legislate on intestate succession involving agricultural land. Since no conflicting State legislation governed the disputed property, Article 254 had no application, and the Hindu Succession Act exclusively governs the matter.
Decision
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, holding that Section 22, Hindu Succession Act applies to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs and that Atam Prakash has no application to such cases.
[Mahinder v. Puran Singh, 2026 INSC 698, decided on 14-7-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Sanjay Karol
**Concurring Judgment Authored by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR with Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jitesh Malik, Mr. Jatin Hooda, Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Mr. Piyush Sharma, Ms. Barnali Basak and Mrs. Madhulika Jha, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR with Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Mr. Danish Saifi, Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Mr. S Subramaniam, Ms. Abida, Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Mr. Aravind C and Ms. Ananya Bhardwaj, Advs.
