TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 369; Banso v. Charan Singh, AIR 1961 Punjab 45; Kaur Singh v. Jaggar Singh, AIR 1961 Punjab 489 and Kalu v. Nand Singh, AIR 1974 P H 50, referred to. 9. Any rule of law of succession previously applicable to those who were governed by custom would after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act be permissible only in respect of the matters for which no provision is made under the Act. However the Hindu Succession Act does not appear to have abrogated any rule or customary law in Punjab relating to restrictions on alienation by a male proprietor over and above what could be done under Hindu law. The right of reversioners, besides those who could do so under Hindu Law, to challenge or contest any such alienation could not be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contest comes to an end only when a final decision is given one way or the other putting an end to the litigation between the parties with regard to the aliena- tion. [235A-B] 11. Every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obli- gation; imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past. Retroactive statute means a statute which creates a new obligation on transaction or considerations already past or destroys or impairs vested rights. [236B] Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 44 para 921. 12. Courts will construe a provision as conferring power to act retroactively when clear words are used. Both the intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be permitted even at the stage of first appeal or second appeal. [239F-G] Harbhajan Singh v. Mohan Singh Ors., [1974] 2 SCC 364; Sadhu Singh Anr. v. Dharam Der Ors., [1981] 1 SCC 510; Official Liquidator v.R. Desikachar, AIR 1974 SC 2069: [1975] 1 SCR 890; Lakshmi Narayan Guin Ors. v. Niranjan Modak, [1985] 1 SCC 270; Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, [1962] 2 SCR 159; Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal, AIR 1941 FC 51:1940 FCR 84; Shyabuddinsab v. GadagBetgeri Municipal Borrough, [1955] 1 SCR 1268; King v. General Commissioner of Income Tax, [1916] 2 KB 249; K.C. Mukherjee, Official Re- ceiver v. Ramratan Kuer, [1935] LR 631A 47: AIR 1936 PC 49; Dayawati v. Inderjit, [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mod. 310, referred to. 16. Considering the principles, the provisions of the Principal Act, the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the provisions of the Amendment Act and the decisions of the Punjab High Court and of this Court, Section 7 of the Prin- cipal Act as amended by the Amendment Act is retroactive and is applicable to pending proceedings. The decision of this Court dated 28.11.1986 in Ujaggar Singh v. Dharam Singh, (Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 1973) and in Udham Singh v. Tarsem Singh, (Civil Appeal No. 1135 of 1974) dated 15.7.1987 do not need reconsideration. [244B-C] 17(a) In the matter of a custom in relation to law three different relations have to be distinguished. First, a custom may be only judicially noticed. This belong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
