Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Co-Heir Pre-Emption Dispute; Upholds Statutory Right Under Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act

Case Name: Sham Lal (since deceased) through LRs v. Shiv Parshad (since deceased) through LR

Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026

Citation: RSA-671-1991

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and affirmed the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession by way of pre-emption. The Court held that where property devolves by succession after the death of a female owner, co-heirs acquire a statutory preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and such right cannot be defeated by pleas of survivorship, waiver or alleged oral notice unsupported by cogent evidence.

Summary: The dispute concerned a share in a residential house at Ambala City originally owned by Tula Ram, who had executed a valid Will in 1955 bequeathing the property to his wife Purni Devi. Upon her death in 1979, the property devolved by succession upon her Class-I heirs, including the plaintiff and the vendors. The legal heirs of one co-heir sold what was described as a one-third share in the property to the defendant by a registered sale deed dated 10 August 1981.

The plaintiff, being a co-heir, instituted a suit for possession by way of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, alleging that no notice of the intended sale was given to him and that the vendors were entitled to only a one-fourth share. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had a superior right of pre-emption and that such right could be enforced through a civil suit even after completion of the sale. The decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

In second appeal, the defendant contended that the vendors had inherited the property by survivorship, that Section 22 was inapplicable, that notice of sale had been given, and that the plaintiff had waived his right by conduct. The High Court rejected all contentions. It held that once succession opened after the death of a female owner, the concept of survivorship had no application. The Court further held that the statutory right under Section 22 stands on a different footing from customary or relationship-based pre-emption and remains enforceable unless clearly waived.

On the plea of notice and waiver, the Court held that the burden lay on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff was informed of the intended sale and had consciously declined to purchase the share. Mere oral assertions, unsupported by documentary or independent evidence, were held insufficient. The Court reiterated that waiver of a statutory right must be clear, unequivocal and intentional, which was absent in the present case.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession by way of pre-emption were affirmed.