MAHINDER Vs. PURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) The short but significant question in this case is whether Sec. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [HSA] would apply to agricultural land or not. This arises from an appeal preferred by the original defendants who are aggrieved by the First Appellate Court [District Judge, Karnal in Civil Appeal no.213 of 2019], setting aside the finding of the Civil Court [Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal] which dismissed the suit by the plaintiff (respondent herein) and such finding being confirmed by the High Court [RSA 2717 of 2025].

(3.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff and the defendants, are siblings, being children of one Nanhu, had inherited the agricultural land as Class-I legal heirs. Defendant nos.1 to 7, either directly or through their legal heirs, sold their respective shares collectively to a third party vide sale deed dtd. 28/12/2011 to one Mrs. Poonam, who was plaintiff no.9 before the Civil Court. The plaintiff filed a suit on 8/12/2011, being Petition No.35 of 2013, before the Civil Court, challenging the aforesaid alienation by virtue of Sec. 22 of HSA. The Civil Court by an order dtd. 7/3/2019 dismissed the same by placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana [(1986) 2 SCC 249], which held Sec. 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act 1913 [Punjab Act] as unconstitutional. It was observed that Sec. 22 of the HSA was pari materia to the aforesaid Sec. and, as such the same also has to be struck down. The First Appellate Court took a different view. It was held that in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh [(2019) 14 SCC 162], this Court discussed the right of pre-emption under the HSA and held it to be applicable to agricultural land. It was further observed that since HSA was a post-independence enactment and the Court in Atam Prakash was not examining any conflict between Sec. 15 of the Punjab Act and Sec. 22 of HSA, the holding in the latter would not govern the question. This conclusion is buttressed with reference to certain judgments of the High Court itself. The High Court, in the second appeal, observed that no substantial question arose for consideration and as such dismissed the same.