Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh
Supreme Court of India, 7 March 2019, 2 judges
The preferential right given to Class I heirs by Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies even where the inherited property is agricultural land; contrary High Court decisions were overruled.
Facts
Two brothers, Santokh Singh and Nathu Ram, inherited agricultural lands from their father. Nathu Ram sold his interest by a registered sale deed of 19.08.1991 to Babu Ram. Santokh Singh sued for declaration and injunction, claiming a preferential right as co-sharer to acquire the land. The trial court dismissed the suit. The District Judge, Hamirpur partly allowed the appeal, held that Santokh Singh had a preferential right under Section 22 to acquire the half share on payment of Rs. 60,000, declared the transfer void and directed Babu Ram to transfer the land. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, following its Division Bench decision in Roshan Lal v. Pritam Singh, dismissed Babu Ram's second appeal. Babu Ram appealed, contending that Section 22 does not cover agricultural land.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is inapplicable where the property is agricultural land.
- Whether Parliament was competent to confer such a preferential right in respect of agricultural land, given that rights in or over land fall in Entry 18 of List II.
What the Court held
- Unlike Entry 7 of List III of the Government of India Act, 1935, which excluded agricultural land, Entry 5 of List III of the Constitution covers succession in its fullest sense, and 'devolution' was taken out of the State List. Both Parliament and the States can legislate on intestacy and succession to agricultural land, subject to Article 254.
- No State law in Himachal Pradesh deals with succession to agricultural land, so the field is occupied by Section 22, which operates in respect of succession to agricultural lands in the State.
- The preferential right cannot be separated from the principles of succession. Since the heir's interest itself comes from the Act, the Act can also lay down how that right is exercised, including a preferential right of the other heirs when one heir proposes to transfer his interest.
- The object of Section 22 is to keep family property within the family as far as possible and prevent an outsider from easily entering it.
- Before its omission in 2005, Section 4(2) made Section 22 inapplicable to devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings; after its omission there is no such exception, though the Court did not decide that aspect.
- The High Court rightly affirmed the District Judge's decree. High Court decisions holding to the contrary stand overruled, and the appeal was dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment settles a conflict among High Courts on whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act reaches agricultural land. It explains why the Federal Court's 1941 opinion on the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act no longer governs after the changes in the Seventh Schedule, treats the preferential right as part of the law of succession under Entry 5 of List III, and overrules the High Court decisions taking the contrary view.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The idea is, therefore, clear that when it comes to “transfer, alienation of agricultural land” which are transfers inter vivos, the competence under Entry 18 of List II is with the State legislatures but when it comes to “intestacy and succession” which are essentially transfers by operation of law as per law applicable to the person upon whose death the succession is to open, both the Union as well as State legislatures are competent to deal with the topic.”
“The reason is clear. 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 present case from the principles of succession. They are both part of the same concept.”
“We, therefore, conclude that 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 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No.86 of 1994. In the end, we must also declare that various decisions of the High Courts, some of which are referred to above, which have held contrary to what we have concluded, stand overruled.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 22, Hindu Succession Act, 1956
- Section 4(2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as originally enacted, omitted in 2005)
- Article 254, Constitution
- Entry 5, List III and Entry 18, List II, Seventh Schedule, Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (deceased) through his LRs
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 2553 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31039 of 2018)
- Decided
- 7 March 2019
- Bench
- Uday Umesh Lalit, M.R. Shah
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Uday Umesh Lalit, J., signed also by M.R. Shah, J.
Questions on this case
4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
In Mahinder v. Puran Singh, decided on 14 July 2026, the Supreme Court held that the preferential right of Class I heirs under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
- A. does not extend to agricultural land, which lies only in the State legislative field
- B. applies to agricultural land only where the State has adopted it by a resolution
- C. applies even where the inherited property is agricultural land
- D. is void, for the reasons that struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act
Show the answer
C. applies even where the inherited property is agricultural land
Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. (2026 INSC 698) followed Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019) and dismissed the appeal of the original defendants: Section 22 is a succession provision under Entry 5 of List III and applies to agricultural land. Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986), on the Punjab Act, did not govern it.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
Consider the following statements about Mahinder v. Puran Singh (14 July 2026): 1. The Court referred Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019) to a larger Bench for reconsideration. 2. The Court traced Parliament's competence to enact Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to Entry 5 of List III (wills, intestacy and succession), which does not exclude agricultural land. 3. The Court held that Section 22 is invalid in its application to agricultural land because Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986) struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A. 1 and 2 only
- B. 2 and 3 only
- C. 1 only
- D. 2 only
Show the answer
D. 2 only
Only statement 2 is correct. The Court said that no occasion arose to refer Babu Ram to a larger Bench, and it treated Atam Prakash as inapplicable because Section 22 is a succession-based right confined to Class I heirs, unlike the wider pre-emption right under the Punjab Act. The concurring opinion noted that Entry 5 of List III, unlike the 1935 entry, does not exclude agricultural land.