LexCHANAN SINGH & ANOTHER versus JAI KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H ·1f CHANAN SINGH & ANOTHER v. JAi KAUR August 11, 1969 [J.C. SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. R.AMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J Pun;ab Pre-emp1ion Act, 1913, s. 15(2)(b)-Scope of-Amendment by Amendment Act of 1964--JJ has retrosvective operation. S, the owner of sdme land in a village in Punjab, died leaving a widow and the respondent, his daughter by another wi'fe. The widow sold a pa'ft of the land in February 1958 to the appell'!Ilts, whereupon the re.pondent filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land sold. The trial eourt decreed the suit and a first appeal was dismissed. A single bench of the High Court allowed the second appeal on the view that the respondent not being the widow's daughter, had no right of pre-emption under s. 15(2) of the Punjab Pre..,mption Act, 1913, as amended by the Punjab Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1960. However, a division bench in a Letters Patent appeal, relying on an amendment made by the Punjab Pre- emption Amendment Act, 1964 in s. 15(2) (b), reversed the judgment of the single bench and decreed the suit. ' It was eontended. in appeal to this Court that there is no indication in the Amendment Act of 1964 that it is to have, retrospective operation and the amendment made by it should be deemed to be only prospective. HELD : The Amendment Act of 1964 was merely of a clarificatory or declaratory nature. , Even in th~ absence of words which were inserted by the: Amendment.Act of 1964 under s. 15(2)(b) the only possible in- teqxetation and m@ning of the words "in the son or daughter of ouch female" could have. :reference to and cover the son or daughter of the husband of the •fem~le. The entire scheme of s. 15(2) is that the right of pre-emption has _been confined to the issues of the last male holder from whom the prdj>erty which has been •old came by inherit•nce. [805 HJ Under s. !5(2)(b) the right of pre-emption would vest firstly in the son or daughter of the husband of the female meaning thereby either her own off-springs from the husband whom she had succeeded or the oon or daughter of that,husl>and even from another wife. [806 G] In the pre!ient..:Cllse the respondent was entitled to exercise hec right of pre..,mption under paragraph First of clause (b) of s. 15(2) even be- fore the Amendme!lt of 1964. Whatever doubts extsted they were re- moved by that Act which must be given retrospective operation. [807 E-F] Ram Sarup v. Munshi & Ors., [1%3] 3 S.C.R. 858 and Mota Si~gh v. Prem Parkash Kaur & Ors., I.LR. [1961] Punj. 614, 627; referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 774 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 91 of 1961. Harbans Singh, for the appellant. 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 1 S.CR. Bishan Narain and S. K. Mthta, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg- ment of a division bench of the Punjab High Court decreeiaig tlie suit filed by the respondent for possession of certain land by pre- emption. The facts may be shortly stated : Santa Singh was the owner of some land in village Samadh Bhai, tehsil Moga. He died leaving a widow Smt. Sobhi. He also left a daughter Smt. Jai Kaur from his other wife. On February 3, 1958 Smt. Sobhi sold 73 ka.nals 14 marlas of land to the appe!lanL1, the sale consi- deration mentioned in the sale deed being Rs. 8,000/-. Smt. Jai Kaur filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land which had been sold by SmL Sobhi. According to her a eonsideraJon of Rs. 4,000/- only had been paid by the vendee. The t::al court decreed the suit in May 1959 granting a decree for posses- sion on payment of Rs. 6,500/- together with costs. The second Additional Judge to whom an appeal was taken dismissed it. In the High Cou;l the ]earned Single Judge took the view that Smt. Jai Kaur not being the daughter of the vendor Smt. Sobhi had no right of pre-emption tmder s. 15 (2) of the Punjab Pre-emp- tion Act, 1913 as amended by the Punjab Pre-e111ption Amend- ment Act, 1960. The suit was dismissed. Smt. Jai Kaur filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court. Relying on an amendment made by the P~njab Pre-emption Amendment Act 1964 in the first paragraph of clause (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, hereinafter c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.