TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kaur from his other wife. On February 3, 1958 Smt. Sobhi sold 73 kanals 14 marlas of land to the appellants, the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed being ₹ 8,000/-. Smt. Jai Kaur filed a suit for possession by preemption of the land which had been sold by Smt. Sobhi. According to her a consideration of ₹ 4,000/- only had been paid by the vendee. The trial court decreed the suit in May 1959 granting a decree for possession on payment of ₹ 6,500/- together with costs. The second Additional Judge to whom an appeal was taken dismissed it. In the High Court the learned Single Judge took the view that Smt. Jai Kaur not being the daughter of the vendor Smt. Sobhi had no right of pre-emption under s. 15(2) of the Punja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re inserted. The result was that after the amendment the portion of clause (b) relevant for our purpose was to read as follows: FIRST, in the son or daughter of such husband of the female. Now if the Amendment Act of 1964 could be regarded as having retrospective operation so as to affect pending proceedings there can be no dispute that the judgment of the division bench was light and must be affirmed. The contention which has been raised on behalf of the appellants is that. there is no indication in the Amendment Act of 1964 that it was to have retrospective operation and therefore the amendment made by it should be deemed to be only prospective. It may be mentioned that by s. 6 of the Amendment Act of 1960 a new section 31 was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of s. 15 is that the right of pre-emption has been confined to the issues of the last male holder from whom the property which has been sold came by inheritance. Looking at clause (a) of sub-s. (2) where the properly which has been sold has come to the female from her ,father or brother by succession the right of pre-emption has been given to. her brother or brother s son. As has been observed in Mota Singh v. Prem Parkash Kaur Ors.(1), the predominant idea seems to be that the property must not go outside the line of the last male holder and the right has been given to his male linea descendants. Where the sale is by the son or the daughter of such female the right is given to the mother s brother or their sons. The principle which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that under clause (b) the right of preemption would vest firstly in the son or daughter of the husband of the female meaning thereby either her own offspring ,from the husband whom she has succeeded or the son or daughter of that husband even from another wife. If the above discussion is kept in view there is no difficulty in attributing a retroactive intention to the legislature when the Amendment Act of 1964 was enacted. It is well settled that if a (1) I.E.R. [1961] Punj. 614. 627. statute is curative or merely declares the previous law retroactive operation would be more rightly ascribed to it than the legislation which may prejudicially affect past rights and transactions. We are in entire agreement with the following view expres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
