Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Once succession opens after death of a female owner, the concept of survivorship has no application” – P&H High Court clarifies interplay between testamentary succession and pre-emption rights under Hindu Succession Act

On January 9, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed the statutory preferential right of co-heirs to pre-empt a sale under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Justice Mandeep Pannu, while dismissing the second appeal, upheld concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts that held the plaintiff entitled to enforce the right of pre-emption against a co-heir who sold a share in a jointly held house property without notice.

The judgment decisively settles key legal issues surrounding the nature of succession from a female owner, scope of pre-emption under Section 22, the effect of notice, and waiver of such statutory right.

“Property devolved by inheritance, not survivorship – Section 22 fully attracted”: Court underscores statutory right of co-heirs

The central observation of the High Court revolved around the devolution of property originally owned by one Tula Ram, who had executed a valid Will in favour of his wife Purni Devi. The property in question – a house in Ambala City – was inherited by her absolutely upon his death. Following her demise in 1979, the property devolved upon her Class-I heirs, including the plaintiff and the vendors (legal heirs of her predeceased sons), thereby creating a situation of co-heirship among them.

Rejecting the defendant’s contention that the vendors had inherited the property through survivorship from their father rather than by succession from Purni Devi, the Court categorically held:

“Once succession opens after death of a female owner, the concept of survivorship has no application... the vendors derived their interest by inheritance and not by survivorship, rendering Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act fully applicable.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff, being a co-heir, was held to possess a preferential right to purchase the share sold by the other heirs to the defendant, even though the sale had already been executed.

“Waiver cannot be presumed – Statutory rights require clear and intentional abandonment”: Burden to prove notice lies on vendee

One of the key contentions raised by the defendant was that the plaintiff had been informed of the proposed sale and had refused to exercise his right, thereby waiving it. This, according to the defence, precluded the plaintiff from subsequently seeking enforcement of the pre-emption right.

However, the Court unequivocally rejected this argument:

“Waiver of a statutory right must be clear, unequivocal and intentional... Mere oral assertion of one of the vendors, unsupported by any documentary or independent evidence, is insufficient to discharge this burden.”

It was further observed that the property in question remained joint and unpartitioned, and the plaintiff continued to possess his share. In the absence of proof of notice or any express or implied waiver, the Court held that the statutory right of pre-emption remained intact.

This interpretation aligns with the settled principle that statutory rights cannot be defeated by mere assumptions or vague claims of implied consent.

Urban Property and Pre-emption: Section 22 Not Subordinated to Customary Law

The appellant attempted to rely upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana [(1986) 2 SCC 249], where customary pre-emption rights based on relationship were declared ultra vires. However, the High Court made a clear distinction, holding that:

“The statutory preferential right conferred upon a co-heir under Section 22 stands on a different footing from customary or relationship-based pre-emption.”

Therefore, the argument that urban property is exempt from pre-emption under Section 22 was found to be legally untenable. The Court reiterated that the right under Section 22 is independent and statutory, not reliant on any custom, thereby making it enforceable even in relation to urban immovable property.

Trial and Appellate Courts Concurred on All Key Issues

The Trial Court had, after full appreciation of pleadings and evidence, found that:

• The Will executed by Tula Ram in favour of his wife Purni Devi was valid and duly proved.
• Upon Purni Devi’s death, succession opened in favour of her Class-I heirs including the plaintiff and the vendors.
• The plaintiff had neither received any notice of intended sale nor waived his right of pre-emption.
• The suit was maintainable under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, despite the sale having already been executed.
• The defendant was entitled only to reimbursement of stamp and registration charges in addition to the sale consideration.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment in totality, specifically rejecting the defendant’s reliance on Atam Parkash, and held that no substantial error or question of law arose to merit appellate interference.

No Substantial Question of Law – Statutory Right of Pre-emption Vindicated

In dismissing the Regular Second Appeal, Justice Pannu concluded that both the Courts below had returned findings based on a sound appreciation of facts and settled law:

“The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law... The present Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merit.”

The judgment stands as a reaffirmation of the sanctity of statutory pre-emption rights under the Hindu Succession Act and provides much-needed clarity on the applicability of Section 22 to urban property, testamentary succession, and co-heirs’ rights.

Date of Decision: January 09, 2026