TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of pre-emption on payment of ₹ 1,05,800/- instead of ₹ 1.35,000/- as directed by the trial Court. 2. On behalf of the rival preemptors (plaintiffs in suit No. 558 of 1958) who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in this Court, a preliminary objection was taken to the competency of the present appeal. The appellants' right to appeal was challenged on the ground that the amendment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the Punjab Act X of 1960 had deprived them of their right of pre-emption with retrospective effect. The appellants had based their right of pre-emption in their suit on the ground of their being proprietors of the village. They were deprived of this right by the Amending Act of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is willingness to pay a sum of ₹ 1,35,000/-. Counselor the respondents 1 to 3 however did not accept the amount of consideration as entered in the sale deed and wanted the issue in regard to the pre-emption money to be decided on the merits. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated June 30, 1958 granted to the plaintiffs in both the suits a decree in the following terms: It is ordered that a decree is granted to the plaintiffs for possession of land in suit by pre-emption on payment of ₹ 1,35,000/- on the condition that the plaintiffs deposit this amount in the court for payment to the vendees-defendants within one month on or before 30th July, 1958, otherwise this suit shall stand dismissed. In case of defa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 800/- failing which their suit was directed to stand dismissed. Nothing was stated in the decree as regards the claim of the appellants. Attention of the High Court apparently does not seem to have been drawn to the provisions either of Section 28 of the Act or of Order 20, Rule 14, Civil P.C. or of para 3 of Chapter I-M(c) at page 59 of Volume I of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders. Para 3 aforesaid emphasises the importance of specifying a definite date for the deposit of money in Court. 5. It may at this stage appropriately be observed that the omission to state in the decree the order in which the two rival claimants were entitled to exercise their right of pre-emption might have been due either to the fact that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prohibiting the courts from passing a decree for pre-emption inconsistent with the Act as amended. The challenge seems to be well founded. 7. This Court had in Ram Swarup's case [1968] 3 S.C.R.858 occasion to construe the effect of Section 31 of the Act. According to that decision, Section 31 is plain and comprehensive enough to require an appellate court to give effect to the substantive provisions of the Amending Act whether the appeal before it is one against a decree granting pre-emption or one refusing that relief. Following the ratio of this decision it must be held that it is not open to this Court to pass a decree of pre-emption in favour of the appellants who were deprived in 1960 of their right to secure such a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Bar of this Court that they had already deposited the preemption money as required by the High Court decree. Indeed this assertion was not disputed on behalf of the appellants. We are accordingly unable to hold that the appellants have successfully executed the decree of pre-emption in their favour. 8. The appellants further developed their argument by submitting that the decree passed by the trial Court in their favour was never appealed against and that the same has become final and binding on all parties. The only appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3, according to this submission was from the decree in their own suit, with the result that the decree in favour of the appellants passed by the trial Court in their suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the High Court. The effect of this omission has not been canvassed in this Court either. We would, therefore, express no opinion on this aspect. The final decree relating to the rival claims of pre-emption in respect of the sale in question, however, seems to be that of the High Court which may well be considered to be binding on all the parties to it. And then, if the appellants' claim that the decree passed in their favour by the trial Court in their suit has already become final and their right is unaffected by the decree of the High Court, then they cannot be considered to be aggrieved by the impugned decree and, therefore, they cannot claim any locus standi to appeal against it. 9. From whichever point of view one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
