TMI Blog1962 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another right by virtue of their status as tenants of the lands, and this right is, by the retrospective operation of s. 31, available to them. We must accordingly set aside the decrees passed by the High Court and send the matters back to the trial Court with a direction that it should allow the respondents an opportunity to amend their claims by putting forth their right to ask for preemption as tenants under the amended provision of 8. - C.A. 436 OF 1961 - - - Dated:- 4-10-1962 - P. BHUVNESHWAR SINHA, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH, JJ. JUDGMENT What is the effect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 introduced by the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1960 (X of 1960) in the parent Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. The lower appellate Court was pleased to admit additional evidence under 0.41, r. 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the exchanges in question had in fact been proved and were, in law, valid. It, therefore came to the conclusion that the appellants acquired equal status with the respondents and so, the respondents' claim for pre-emption must fail. That is why the appeals preferred by the appellants were allowed and the respondents' suits were dismissed. The dispute was then taken up before the High Court of Panjab by the respondents by second appeals. Mahajan, J., who heard these appeals held that the property acquired by exchange in lieu of the part of the property purchased by the vendees did not give the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mended s.15, that decree can no longer be sustained because of the provisions of s.31 of the amending Act. Section 31 provides that no Court shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption whether instituted before or after the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1959(1960) which is inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act. In support of his argument that s.31 being retrospective in operation the respondents' title to claim pre-emption can no longer be entertained. Mr. Achhru Ram for the appellants has invited our attention to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Ram Sarup v. Munshi ([1963] 3 S.C.R. 858.) pronounced on August 30, 1962. In that case, Ayyangar, J., who spoke for the Constitution Bench c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a part thereof. This class of tenants has been introduced in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of amended s. 15. Clause four of s. 15(1) (c) provides that the right of pre- emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendors or any one of them the land or property sold or a part thereof. Similar provisions are made in clauses (a) - (b) of the said section. For the respondents Mr. Vohra contends that they are the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendor the lands in question and as such, they are now clothed with the right to claim pre- emption. In other words, the respondents argument is that though the right to preempt which they possessed under clauses (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to the rights which have been created for the first time by the amending Act. The argument thus presented may prima facie appear to be attractive; but a close examination of the words used in s. 31 shows that it is not well founded. Section 31, in substance, requires the appellate Court to pass a decree in a preemption matter which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act. In the present appeals, if we were to uphold the respondents' right to claim preemption on the strength of the provisions of s. 15(c) as they stood prior to the amendment, that would be inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act, and so, the change made by the amending Act has to be given effect to and the right which once vested in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l vest in the persons specified in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of s. 15(1). It is, however, urged that the law of preemption requires that the preemptor must possess the right to preempt at the date of the sale, at the date of the suit and at the date of the decree. This position cannot be disputed. But when it is suggested that the respondents cannot claim that they had the right when they brought the present suit or when the sales were effected, the argument ignores the true effect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 and s. 15. If the inevitable consequence of the retrospective operation of s.31 is to make the substantive provisions of s. 15 also retrospective, it follows that by fiction introduced by the retrospective operation, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
