Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
s. 22 – Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases – Applicability of s. 22 to agricultural land – Held: Preferential right given to an heir of a Hindu u/s. 22 is applicable even if the property is an agricultural land – However, s. 22 is not applicable in cases of devolution of tenancy rights with respect to agricultural holdings.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case it is nobody’s case that the matter relating to succession to an interest in agricultural lands is in any way dealt with by any State legislation operating in the State of Himachal Pradesh or that such legislation must prevail in accordance with the principles under Article 254 of the Constitution. The field is occupied only by Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 insofar as State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. The High Court was, therefore, absolutely right in holding that Section 22 of the Act would operate in respect of succession to agricultural lands in the State. [Para 16][942-C, D]
1.2 Though, succession to an agricultural land is otherwise dealt with under Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, before its omission, had made it clear that the provisions of the Act would not apply in cases inter alia of devolution of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings. Thus, the effect of Section 4(2) of the Act before its deletion was quite clear that, though the general field of succession including in respect of agricultural lands was dealt with under Section 22 of the Act, insofar as devolution of tenancy rights with respect to agricultural holdings were concerned, the provisions of Section
22 would be inapplicable. The High Court was, therefore, absolutely right in its conclusion. However, with the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Act, now there is no exception to the applicability of Section 22 of the Act. [Para 17][942-F, H]
1.3 The “right in or over land, land tenures ….” are within the exclusive competence of the State legislatures under Entry
18 of List II of the Constitution. Pre-emption laws enacted by State legislatures are examples where preferential rights have been conferred upon certain categories and classes of holders in cases of certain transfers of agricultural lands. The preferential rights by s. 22 is considered with three illustrations. (a) Three persons, unrelated to each other, had jointly purchased an agricultural holding, whereafter one of them wished to dispose of his interest. The normal principle of pre-emption may apply in the matter and any of the other joint holders could pre-empt the sale in accordance with rights conferred in that behalf by appropriate State legislation. (b) If those three persons were real brothers or sisters and had jointly purchased an agricultural holding, investing their own funds, again like the above scenario, the right of pre-emption will have to be purely in accordance with the relevant provisions of the State legislation. (c) But, if, the very same three persons in illustration (b) had inherited an agricultural holding and one of them was desirous of disposing of his or her interest in the holding, the principles of Section 22 of the Act would step in. The source of title or interest of any of the heirs in the third illustration, is purely through the succession which is recognized in terms of the provisions of the Act. Since the right or interest itself is conferred by the provisions of the Act, the manner in which said right can be exercised has also been specified in the very same legislation. Therefore, the content of preferential right cannot be disassociated in the instant case from the principles of succession. They are both part of the same concept. [Para 18, 19][943-B-H]
1.4 When the Parliament thought of conferring the rights of succession in respect of various properties including agricultural holdings, it put a qualification on the right to transfer to an outsider and gave preferential rights to the other heirs with a designed object. Under the Shastrik Law, the interest of a coparcener would devolve by principles of survivorship to which an exception was made by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. If the conditions stipulated in Section 6 were satisfied, the devolution of such interest of the deceased would not go by survivorship but in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since the right itself in certain cases was created for the first time by the provisions of the Act, it was thought fit to put a qualification so that the properties belonging to the family would be held within the family, to the extent possible and no outsider would easily be planted in the family properties. It is with this objective that a preferential right was conferred upon the remaining heirs, in case any of the heirs was desirous of transferring his interest in the property that he received by way of succession under the Act. [Para 20][944-A-D]
1.5 The preferential right given to an heir of a Hindu under Section 22 of the Act is applicable even if the property in question is an agricultural land. The High Court was right in upholding the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge. [Para 21] [944-D-E]
Sm. Laxmi Debi v. Surendra Kumar Panda and Others AIR 1957 Orissa 1 : 22 (1956) CLT 466 – approved. In the matter of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 (1941) 3 FCR 12 : AIR 1941 FC 72; Roshan Lal v. Pritam Singh and others R.S.A. No. 258 of 2012 decided on 1.3.2008; Amar Singh and Ors. v. Baldev Singh and Ors. AIR 1960 Punjab 666(FB); Basavant Gouda v. Channabasawwa and Anr. AIR 1971 Mysore 151; Nidhi Swain and Ors. v. Khati Dibya and Ors. AIR 1974 Orissa 70; Venkatalakshmamma & Ors. v. Lingamma & Anr. 1984 SCC OnLine Kar 141; Tukaram Genba Jadhav and Ors. v. Laxman Genba Jadhav and Anr. AIR 1994 Bombay 247 : (1994) 96 BLR 227 ; Bharat v. Anjanabai (2007) (6) Mh.LJ 706 ; Vaijanath and ors. v. Guramma and Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 292 : [1998]
3 Suppl. SCR 36 – referred to.
Jaswant and ors. v. Smt. Basanti Devi 1970 PLJ 587 : 1970 Punjab Law Reporter Vol. 72 page No. 958 ; Smt. Prema Devi v. Joint Director of Consolidation (Head quarter) at Gorakhpur Camp and Ors. AIR 1970
Allahabad 238 ; Nahar Hirasingh and Ors. v. Dukalhin and ors. AIR 1974 MP 141 ; Jeewanram v. Lichmadevi and Anr AIR 1981 Rajasthan 16 ; Balkaur Singh v. Gurmail Singh 2007 SCC OnLine P&H 1257;
Subramaniya Gounder & Ors. v. Easwara Gounder 2010-5-L.W. 941 – disapproved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.