AMIR SINGH AND ANOTHER versus RAM SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 04-10-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
RamSatup 
•• 
Muna/ii 
A,1Jrangar J. 
1962 
0&tobe1" 4. 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
the circumstances that the appellant has succeeded 
only by virtue of subsequent legislation, we direct 
that there shall be no order as to costs in the 
appeal. 
• 
Appeals Nos. 139, I 47 and 
214 dismissed. 
~ppeal No. 510 al/c11.·(d. 
AMIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
RAM SINGH AND OTHERS 
(And connected appeals) 
(B. P. SINHA., c. J., P. B. G.AJENDR.AG.ADK.AR, 
K. N. W.ANCHOO, K, c. D.AS GUFTA 
and J. C. SH.AH, JJ.) 
Prt·•mption-Amenrling legislatio11 creating new right• and 
providing rlecreea not to be passer! inconsistent with the new law-
Retrospective 
operation-Effect on pending appeal-Punjab 
Pre-emption Acl, 1913 (Punj. of 1913), as amended by Punjab 
Act 10 of 1960, ss.15(1);c) cl. 4, 31. 
The properties in suit had been sold by A to the 
appellants 
on May 
31; 
1956, 
but 
the respondents 
as the 
owners of 
certain 
agricultural 
1and 
in 
th~ 
patti claimed that they had a right of pre-emption under s. 15 
(c) (ii) and (iii) of the Pnujab Pre-emption Act, 1913. 
In the 
suit instituted by the respondents for 
this purpose the 
appellant• resisted the claim on the ground that the vendees 
from A had transferred by exchanges some of the items out of 
the lands purchased by them and that as a result of the said 
exchanges the appellants themselves had beeome entitled to 
pre.empt the said sales under the same statutory provision. 
The suit 
was, however, decreed by the trial court and 
the decision 
was 
confirmed 
by 
the 
High 
Court 
of 
Punjab. 
The 
appellants 
obtained 
special 
leave 
to appeal to the Supreme Court and during the pendency of 
3S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
885 
the appeal the Act was amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960, 
by which, inter alia, (1) els. (ii) and (iii) of s. 15 (c) of the 
original Act were deleted, (2) cl.4 of s. 15 (l)(e) pr'.>vided 
that the right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land 
and village immoveable property shall vest in the tenants who 
held under tenancy of the vendors or anyone of them the ]and 
or property sold or a part thereof, and (3) s. 31 provided that 
no court shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption whether 
instituted before or after the commencement of the amending 
Act of 1960 which was inconsistent with the provisions of the 
said Act. 
In view of the new provisions introduced by the 
amending act the responndents raised a new contention that 
they were tenants who held under tenancy of the vendor 
of the lands in 
question and, as 
such, they 
were 
entitled to the right of pre-emption under cl.4 of s.15 (l)(c) 
of the Act, as amended, even if it be held that the right to 
claim pre-emption under els. (ii) and (iii) of s.15 (c) of 
the unamended Act was taken away retrospectively by the 
amending Act. The appellants pleaded that even assuming 
that cl.4 of s.15 (l)(c) was applicable, the respondents could 
not get a decree on the bas sis of the new right of pre-emption 
inasmuch as they had no such right on the date on which 
the suit was filed or when the sales were effected. 
Held, that ( 1) the provisions of s.31 of the Punjab Pre· 
emption Act, 1913, as amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960, are 
retrospective in operation and, therefore, the decree passed in 
favour of the respondents by the trial court and affirmed by 
the High Court under the unamended section could not be 
sustained. 
Ram Sarup v.Munshi-[1963] 3 S.C.R. 858 followed. 
(2} The retrospective operation of s.31 necessarily involves 
effec, being given to the substantive provisions of amended 
s.15 retrospectively, and hence the rights which the respondents 
now claim under the amended provisions must be deemed to 
have v~sted in them at the relevant time, with the result that 
they are entitled, on remand, to ask for a decree passed on the 
basis of the said rights. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals 
Nos. 436 to 438 of 1961. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated December 9, 1959, of the Punjab 
J9dJ ---
Amor Singh 
v. 
Ram Singh 
1962 
Amir Singh 
v. 
Ram Sin1h 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] 
High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 407, 408 
and 409 of 195~. 
Achhru Ram and B. D. Jain, for the appel-
lants. 
Gian Singh Vohra, for the respondents. 
1962. October 4. The Judgement of the Court 
was delivered by 
Co.fendragaakorJ. 
GAJENDR.AGADKAR, J.-What is the fffcct of 
the retrospective operation of s. 31 introduced by 
the Punja

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.