BACHAN SINGH & ANR. ETC. versus CHHOTU RAM & ORS. ETC

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 23-07-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BACHAN SINGH & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
CHHOTU RAM & ORS. ETC 
B 
JULY 23, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
-+-
Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913, Section 15( l)(a) fourthly & 31-
-+ 
Punjab Amendment Act, 1960-Amending Act creating new rights-
c 
Effect of. 
--
The respondents in Civil Appeal No. 639 of 1985 claimed posses-
sion of the property sold by one Natho on November 22, 1972 by way of 
pre-emption on the ground that they had superior rights being father's 
-.-1 
brother's sons of Natho covered under Section IS(l)(a) THIRDLY of 
D 
the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The claim was decreed and the 
alienees'-appellants appeal to the District Judge as also the High 
Court did not succeed. Hence !his appeal by Special Leave. 
In Civil Appeal No. 911of1971 respondent No. 1 was the owner of 
some agricultural property in which appellants-plaintiffs claimed to be 
E 
the cultivating tenants. Respondent No. 1 sold the aforesaid property on 
July 22, 1959. The appellants-tenants filed a suit ou July 21, 1960 for a 
decree for possession by pre-emption. The Trial Court, the first appel-
late court as also the High Court took the view that on the date when 
the sale took place, the appellants had no right of pre-emption and, as t 
such, the claims was not maintainable. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: (In C.A. No. 639 of 1983) 
-t 
1. The decree passed by the trial court as upheld in the first and 
second appeals must be reversed in view of the decision of the Supreme 
G 
Court in Alam Prakash v. State of Haryana, [1986] l Scale 260 holding 
clauses First, Secondly and Thirdly in section JS(l)(a) as ultra vires the 
Constitution. Therefore, section IS(l)(a) THIRDLY is and was not 
available to the respondents-plaintiffs to base their claim of pre-
~ 
.... 
emption upon. [380D] 
H 
378 
BACHAN SINGH v. CHHOTU RAM [MISRA, J.) 
379 
(In C.A. No. 911of1971) 
A 
>, 
2. AU the three Courts have gone wrong in dismissing the claim of 
, 
the appellants-plaintiffs. They are found entitled to· pre-empt the 
alienees under section (IS)(I)(a) FOURTHLY of the Act as amended 
by Act of 1960. [381E; 382D-E] 
B 
3.1 It is a well settled principle of law that when the legislature 
makes provision for a deeming situation to give effect to the mandate of 
+ 
the legislature, all things necessary to effect retrospective intention 
' 
must be deemed to have existed. [382C-D] 
)r 
3.2 With effect from February 4, 1960 section 15 of the Punjab 
-
Pre-emption Act 1913 was amended by Act 10 of 1960. The inevitable 
c 
consequence of the retrospective operation of section 31is to make the 
substantive provisions of section 15 also retrospective. It follows that by 
the fiction introduced by retrospective operation, the rigths which the 
appellants claimed under the amended provisions of section 15 must be 
deemed to have vested in them at the relevant time. Therefore, the 
D 
appellants must be presumed to have had a right to pre-i'mpt on the 
date of sale. [380F-G; 381G; 382B-C] 
Amir Singh & Anr. v. Ram Singh & Ors., [ 1963] 3 SCR 884, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 91 
E 
of 1971 
'-\ 
From the Judgement and Order dated 21.8.1978 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in RS.A. No. 378 of 1963. 
Civil Appeal No. 639 of 1985 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1984 of the Punjab & 
+ 
Haryana High Court in RS.A. No. 1721of1976. 
S.K. Bagga for the Appellants. 
H.K. Puri for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
--\_ 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. These two appeals by special leave 
are directed against two different judgments of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in suits for pre-emption. The facts of the two cases are 
different. 
H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C. R. 
A 
CA. 639/85 
_,,,_ 
In this Appeal the alienation was on November 22, 1972, by one 
Nathu and his wife Smt. Singari in favour of outsiders, Plaintiffs 
lll
claimed possession of the property by way of pre-emption on the 
ground that they have superior rights being father's brother's sons of 
B 
Nathu covered under Section 15(1)(1) THIRDLY of the Punjab Pre-
emption Act, 1913. That claim was decreed so far as Nathu's half share 
in the property was concerned and the claim as against the alienation 
-+ 
of half share by his wife was rejected. The alienees' appeal to the 
District Judge as also the High Court did not succeed. 
~ 
A constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Alam Parkash 
-
c 
v. State of Hary
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.