JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The short but significant question in this case is whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956¹[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 Court²[District Judge, Karnal in Civil Appeal no.213 of 2019], setting aside the finding of the Civil Court³[Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal] which dismissed the suit by the plaintiff (respondent herein) and such finding being confirmed by the High Court⁴[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 dated 28th December 2011 to one Mrs. Poonam, who was plaintiff no.9 before the Civil Court. The plaintiff filed a suit on 8th December 2011, being Petition No.35 of 2013, before the Civil Court, challenging the aforesaid alienation by virtue of Section 22 of HSA. The Civil Court by an order dated 7th March 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 Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913⁶[Punjab Act] as unconstitutional. It was observed that Section 22 of the HSA was pari materia to the aforesaid Section 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 Section 15 of the Punjab Act and Section 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.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The case of the parties is as follows:

4.1 The original defendants contend that the suit under Section 22 HSA was not maintainable at the first instance since – (i) all the relevant persons who were covered within its sweep, were not made parties thereto; (ii) the sale deed by which the property in question stood transferred to a third party was never challenged; (iii) once the sale in question stood completed, the only course of action available to the plaintiff was to file a regular civil suit; (v)there lies no right of appeal against an adjudication under Section 22; and(vi)the judgment in Babu Ram is not good law for having missed out Entry 6 of List III and Entries 14 and 18 of List II.

4.2 Per contra, the plaintiff submits inter-alia that – (i)the issue of nonjoinder of parties was not raised before the High Court and it is settled law that the same was to be raised at the earliest; (ii)the present case is not one of partial pre-emption and the prayer of the plaintiff before the Civil Court was with regard to the entire land; (iii)since the petition under Section 22 HSA was filed prior in point of time to the sale deed which was dated 28th December 2011, there was no requirement to challenge the sale deed; (iv)a petition to enforce Section 22, HSA rights is maintainable even after transfer of property is complete and the same is the consistent view of the High Courts; (v)Atam Prakash has no application in this case and Babu Ram is the applicable law since it has settled the question of law, conclusively; and (vi)Entry 5 list III of the VII schedule read with Article 254 of the Constitution gave complet