In a significant ruling on inheritance rights, the Supreme Court has held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to agricultural land inherited by Class-I heirs, reaffirming that co-heirs enjoy a preferential right to purchase another heir's share before it is transferred to an outsider. The Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mahinder and others and upheld the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after several siblings, who had inherited agricultural land from their father, sold their respective shares to a third party. One of the brothers, Puran Singh, approached the civil court claiming a preferential right to acquire those shares under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The trial court dismissed his plea, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, which had struck down provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. However, the First Appellate Court reversed that decision, holding that the Supreme Court's later ruling in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh had already recognised that Section 22 applies even to inherited agricultural land. The High Court subsequently affirmed that view.
Court's Observations
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examined whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act could be invoked in relation to agricultural land.
The Court clarified that the earlier judgment in Atam Prakash did not declare the concept of pre-emption itself unconstitutional. Instead, it had only invalidated a provision of the Punjab Pre-emption Act because its classification of beneficiaries violated constitutional equality principles.
Rejecting the appellants' argument, the Bench observed:
"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."
The Court stressed that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act serves a different purpose. It grants a limited preferential right only to Class-I heirs who inherit property through succession, unlike the broader pre-emption rights created under the Punjab legislation.
The Bench also declined the request to refer the earlier decision in Babu Ram to a larger Bench, holding that it correctly interpreted the law.
Parliament Had Competence to Enact Section 22
Addressing the argument that Parliament lacked authority to legislate on agricultural land, the Court held that Section 22 is fundamentally a law governing succession, not merely the transfer of agricultural property.
Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in a concurring opinion, explained that the preferential right under Section 22 arises only because co-heirs inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act. It is therefore inseparable from the law of succession.
He observed:
"The preferential right and the succession right are two limbs of the same legislative design dealing with succession amongst the Hindus under the Act."
The Court further held that Entry 5 of the Concurrent List, which deals with intestacy and succession, empowers Parliament to legislate on succession to agricultural land. Since no conflicting State law governed the dispute, the Hindu Succession Act applied fully.
Sale Deed Argument Rejected
The appellants also argued that the respondent had failed to challenge the sale deed executed in favour of the purchaser.
The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the respondent had invoked Section 22 before the sale deed was executed. Since the claim asserting the preferential right was already pending, there was no legal necessity to file a separate challenge to the subsequent sale deed.
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court. It held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies to inherited agricultural land, and that the respondent had validly asserted his preferential right before the transfer was completed. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mahinder & Others vs. Puran Singh
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29289 of 2025)
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: July 14, 2026
