Mahinder v. Puran Singh
“Pre-emption Among Co-Heirs Survives: Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act Applies to Agricultural Land and Atam Prakash Does Not Strike It Down”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gives Class I heirs a preferential right to acquire the interest of a co-heir who proposes to transfer inherited immovable property, applies to agricultural land. The Court rejected the argument that Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986), which struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, also invalidates Section 22, holding the two provisions are not pari materia and Atam Prakash never considered Section 22. It held there is no conflict between Atam Prakash and Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019), which had applied Section 22 to agricultural land, found no occasion to refer Babu Ram to a larger Bench, and rejected the legislative competence challenge based on Entry 6 of List III and Entries 14 and 18 of List II, as Section 22 falls under Entry 5 of List III (intestacy and succession). The sibling plaintiff's suit, filed before the sale deed was executed, was held maintainable and the appeal was dismissed. Justice Kotiswar Singh wrote a concurring opinion on legislative competence.
The Bottom Line
If you inherit farmland together with your siblings, and one sibling wants to sell their share to an outsider, the other Class I heirs have a first right to buy it. The Supreme Court confirmed that this right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is a succession-based right which applies to agricultural land and has not been wiped out by the older Atam Prakash decision on the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Plaintiff Files Suit Under Section 22 HSA
The plaintiff filed a suit challenging the alienation by invoking his preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (registered as Petition No. 35 of 2013).
Plaintiff Files Suit Under Section 22 HSA
The plaintiff filed a suit challenging the alienation by invoking his preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (registered as Petition No. 35 of 2013).
Sale Deed in Favour of Third Party
Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, directly or through legal heirs, sold their shares collectively to Mrs. Poonam by sale deed.
Sale Deed in Favour of Third Party
Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, directly or through legal heirs, sold their shares collectively to Mrs. Poonam by sale deed.
Civil Court Dismisses Suit
The Civil Court dismissed the suit, relying on Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and treating Section 22 HSA as pari materia with Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
Civil Court Dismisses Suit
The Civil Court dismissed the suit, relying on Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and treating Section 22 HSA as pari materia with Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, and held Section 22 HSA applicable to agricultural land.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, and held Section 22 HSA applicable to agricultural land.
The Story
The plaintiff, Puran Singh, and the defendants (the appellants, Mahinder and others) are siblings, children of Nanhu, who inherited agricultural land as Class I legal heirs. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, directly or through their legal heirs, collectively sold their shares to a third party, Mrs. Poonam (plaintiff No. 9 before the Civil Court), by a sale deed dated 28 December 2011. The plaintiff had filed a suit on 8 December 2011 (Petition No. 35 of 2013 before the Civil Court) challenging the alienation by invoking Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA).
The Civil Court (Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal), by order dated 7 March 2019, dismissed the suit, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, which held Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 unconstitutional, reasoning that Section 22 HSA was pari materia and must also be struck down. The First Appellate Court (District Judge, Karnal, Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2019) took a different view, holding that Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh had discussed the right of pre-emption under the HSA and held it applicable to agricultural land, and that Atam Prakash did not examine any conflict between the Punjab Act and Section 22 HSA. The High Court, in the second appeal (RSA No. 2717 of 2025), found that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed it. The original defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, where Mr. Indrajit Mahanty, Senior Counsel, assisted as amicus curiae.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
The Section 22 suit was not maintainable on several grounds
The original defendants contended that all relevant persons within the sweep of Section 22 had not been made parties; the sale deed transferring the property to a third party was never challenged; once the sale was complete the only course was a regular civil suit; there was no right of appeal against an adjudication under Section 22; and Babu Ram is not good law for having missed Entry 6 of List III and Entries 14 and 18 of List II.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Non-joinder not raised earlier; suit filed before the sale deed
The plaintiff submitted that non-joinder of parties was not raised before the High Court and should be raised at the earliest, that the case was not one of partial pre-emption as the prayer related to the entire land, and that since the Section 22 petition was filed before the sale deed there was no need to challenge it. A petition to enforce Section 22 rights, he said, is maintainable even after transfer, which was the consistent view of the High Courts.
Atam Prakash does not apply; Babu Ram governs; Entry 5 of List III
The plaintiff argued that Atam Prakash has no application and Babu Ram conclusively settled the law, and that Entry 5 of List III read with Article 254 gave the Central Legislature complete autonomy to legislate on succession and devolution of agricultural lands, relying on West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P. and M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India.
Amicus: no conflict between Atam Prakash and Babu Ram
Mr. Indrajit Mahanty, Senior Counsel assisting the Court as amicus curiae, submitted that there is no conflict between Atam Prakash and Babu Ram. Section 22 HSA was enacted under Entry 5 of List III and is a neutral, succession-based provision conferring a limited preferential right amongst co-heirs.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court framed the question as whether Section 22 HSA applies to agricultural land (para 2). It set out the nature of the right of pre-emption: a weak right to the offer of property about to be sold, a right of substitution and not of re-purchase, and one that, while it occupies space in the statute book, has to be enforced (para 4.4). It listed the ingredients of Section 22: a right between co-heirs of an intestate, preferential in nature, enforced through the general procedure for enforcement of a civil right, and asserted before the transaction is completed (para 5.1). The Court then compared Atam Prakash and Babu Ram. Atam Prakash struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Act because its list of persons did not conform to the agnatic theory of succession; it did not consider Section 22 HSA. Babu Ram addressed the same question as in this appeal and held that Section 22 applies even to agricultural land, with the source of the heirs' interest being succession under the Act (para 6). On the Court's own view, using Atam Prakash to say pre-emption itself is unconstitutional would be a stretch (para 7), and striking down duly enacted legislation by importing observations from another case would invite "judicially created anarchy" (para 8). The two provisions are not pari materia: Punjab Act rights flow from consanguinity, while Section 22 is confined to Class I heirs, and in any case shedding light does not permit deciding the validity of provisions (para 9). On competence, Entry 14 of List II concerns agriculture as a profession; Entry 6 of List III concerns non-agricultural transfers; and Entry 18 of List II was answered by Babu Ram, illustration (c), which places Section 22 under Entry 5 of List III (paras 10-11). No occasion arose to refer Babu Ram to a larger Bench (para 12). The sale deed need not be challenged because the Section 22 petition preceded it (para 13). The appeal was dismissed (para 14). Justice Kotiswar Singh, concurring, held that Section 22 is in pith and substance an incident of succession.
To impute a finding that the concept of pre-emption itself has been held to be unconstitutional would be nothing but a wholly incorrect reading of the passage.
Para 7
Limits the reach of Atam Prakash: the problem there was the consanguinity-based list, not pre-emption as a concept.
if the constitutional validity of Section 22 HSA was never put to challenge where does the occasion arise for any Court whatsoever, to say that the same cannot be enforced?
Para 7
Stresses that a statutory provision cannot be treated as invalid without a challenge to its validity.
we would invite a situation of judicially created anarchy
Para 8
Warns against striking down legislation by importing observations from judgments on different statutes.
the right of pre-emption applies to what is about to happen, not what has already happened.
Para 13
Explains why the suit filed before the sale deed was properly instituted and no separate challenge to the sale deed was needed.
The right of pre-emption as conferred under Section 22 of the HSA is, in its pith and substance, an incident of succession and nothing more.
Para 3 (Kotiswar Singh, J.)
The concurring opinion applies the pith and substance doctrine to hold that Section 22 falls within Entry 5 of List III.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The plaintiff's Section 22 HSA claim, which the First Appellate Court had upheld, stood upheld. The Supreme Court's judgment does not set out any further directions on the mechanics of relief.
Directions Issued
- Leave granted
- The findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court were affirmed
- The Court held Atam Prakash does not govern the validity of Section 22 HSA and that Babu Ram needs no reconsideration by a larger Bench
- No costs
- Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed
Key Legal Principles Established
Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gives Class I heirs of an intestate a preferential right to acquire the interest of a co-heir who proposes to transfer it, and applies to agricultural land.
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana invalidated Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act because of its consanguinity-based list; it does not hold that pre-emption itself is unconstitutional nor does it affect Section 22 HSA.
Section 22 HSA and Section 15 of the Punjab Act are not pari materia: the latter rests on consanguinity while the former is confined to Class I heirs who inherited together.
Observations made in a case on one provision cannot be used to strike down a different, unchallenged statutory provision.
Section 22 HSA is, in pith and substance, an incident of succession falling within Entry 5 of List III and not a provision on transfer of agricultural land.
The right of pre-emption applies to what is about to happen, not what has already happened, so a Section 22 suit filed before the sale deed need not separately challenge the sale deed.
In the absence of any State law on succession governing the property, no question of repugnancy under Article 254 arises.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you and your siblings inherited farmland from a parent who died without a will, and one sibling wants to sell their share to an outsider, you have the first right to buy it.
- To protect this right, go to court promptly, ideally before the sale is completed. The Supreme Court noted that the right applies to what is about to happen.
- The Court confirmed that this protection is not lost just because the land is agricultural.
- The right can be exercised only among Class I heirs who inherited together, not by neighbours, tenants or distant relatives.
- A different law, the old Punjab pre-emption law, was struck down earlier, but that did not take away this inheritance-based right.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Seventh Schedule, List III, Entry 5
Constitution of India
“Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law.”
Relevance: The Court held Section 22 HSA is a succession-based provision under this entry, which does not exclude agricultural land.
Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 14 and 18; List III, Entry 6
Constitution of India
“Entry 14 of List II covers agriculture; Entry 18 of List II covers land, including transfer and alienation of agricultural land; Entry 6 of List III covers transfer of property other than agricultural land.”
Relevance: The appellants relied on these entries to argue Parliament lacked competence. The Court found Entries 14 and 6 inapplicable and held Entry 18 was answered by Babu Ram.
Article 254
Constitution of India
“Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by State Legislatures.”
Relevance: The concurring opinion noted that with no State law on succession to the property, no question of repugnancy arose.
Statutory Provisions
Section 22
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“Where an interest in immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, devolves upon two or more Class I heirs, and any one of them proposes to transfer his or her interest, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.”
Relevance: The central provision. The Court held it applies to agricultural land and is a valid, succession-based provision.
Section 15
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
“Persons in whom the right of pre-emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property.”
Relevance: Struck down in Atam Prakash for the State of Haryana; the Court held that decision does not govern Section 22 HSA.
Related Cases & Precedents
Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (Dead) through LRs.
followed(2019) 14 SCC 162
Held that the preferential right given to an heir under Section 22 HSA applies even if the property is agricultural land; the Court found no need to refer it to a larger Bench.
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors.
distinguished(1986) 2 SCC 249
Constitution Bench struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applied in Haryana; held not to govern the validity of Section 22 HSA.
Vaijanath v. Guramma
cited(1999) 1 SCC 292
Discussed in Babu Ram and relied on in the concurring opinion for Parliament's competence under Entry 5 of List III over succession to agricultural land.
Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh
cited1958 SCC OnLine SC 88
Four-Judge Bench summary of the principles governing the right of pre-emption, including that it is a weak right of substitution and not of re-purchase.
Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath Singh
cited1962 SCC OnLine SC 324
Constitution Bench held the right of pre-emption to be a reasonable restriction on the right under the former Article 19(1)(f); discussed in Atam Prakash.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.