DARSHAN SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus RAM PAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 20-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DARSHAN SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
V. 
RAM PAL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1990 
[T.K. THOMMEN, K.N. SAIKIA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, J.J.] 
Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920: Section 7-
Alienations of immovable property-Contesting of~Effect of Punjab 
Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973-Whether retrospec-
tive and applicable to pending proceedings. 
Punjab Laws Act 1872, Section 5. 
C 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913-Effect of Punjab Pre-emption 
(Repeal) Act, 1973-What is. 
Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act 1920. 
Hindu Succession Act 1956, Section 4. 
D 
Jurisprudence-Custom and law-Relationship-What is. 
Statutory Interpretation. 
Retrospectivity of statute-What is. 
Practice and Procedure. 
Appeal-Whether a continuation of a suit-Change in /aw-
E 
Effect on pending proceedings. 
Words and Phrases-'Contest'-Meaning of. 
The appellants in the appeals were contesting alienations under 
the provisions of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 and 
their suits were at the appellate stage in the High Court when the 
F 
Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973 came into 
G 
H 
force on the 23rd day of January, 1973. 
The High Court dismissed the appeals taking the view that no 
contest to alienations was permissible after the 1973 Amendment Act 
came into force. 
In Ujaggar Singh v. Dharam Singh & Ors., a Division Bench of 
this Court while dismis.<ing the appeal on 28.11.1986, b.eld that Section 7 
of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act as amended in 1973 has 
retrospective effect and that it also applies to pending proceedings. 
Jn another Civil Appeal viz. Udam Singh & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh & 
Ors. another Division Bench rejected the conlP:nlion that the Amendment Act 
did not apply to pending p~ 
and di"'1issed the appeal on 15. 7 .1987. 
212 
DARSHAN SINGH v. R.P. SINGH 
213 
However, in Bara Singh v. Kashmira Singh & Ors., a Division 
A 
Bench while considering the same question as regards the applicability 
of the Amending Act to pending proceedings, held on 4.1.1987, that the 
view expressed in Ujaggar Singh v. Dharam Singh & Ors., appears to 
run counter to the express provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of 
the Amendment Act which provides that the amendment shall be 
8 
deemed to have come into force only on January 3, 1973 and that it cannot 
be disputed that Section 3 of the Amendment Act which makes Section 7 
of the Act applicable to all immovable property affects the substantive 
rights of the parties, and that the matter requires reconsideration and 
that the matter be placed before a bench of three Judges by the Chief 
Justice. 
The m~in contentions of the appellants in the appeals were that 
neither by express words nor by necessary implication the 1973 Amend-
ment Act can be said to be retrospective and applicable to pending 
proceedings, and that more so in view of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of 
the Amendment Act deeming it to have come into force on 23.1.1973, 
and that the retention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Principal Act; 
the vested rights to contest alienations could not be said.to have been 
taken away by retrospective operation. 
The respondents' contentions however were that in view of the 
deletion of Section 6 and the amendment of Section 7 by the Amend-
ment Act 1973 so as to include both ancestral and non-ancestral inunov-
able properties, there could be no question of any contest after the 
Amendment Act came into force, and this Court in Ujaggar Singh's case 
having already held that the Amendment Act is retrospective and ap-
plicable to pending proceedings, the High Court has rightly dismissed 
the appeals. 
Dismissing the 11ppeals, this Court, 
HELD: l(a) The Punjab Laws Act, 1872 was an Act for declaring 
which of certain rules, laws and regulations would have the force of law 
in the Punjab. [222H] 
(b) A custom prevailed in Punjab that ancestral immovable pro-
perty is ordinarily inalienable (especially amongst 'Jats' residing in the 
Central districts of the Punjab), except for necessity or with the consent 
of male descendants, or, in the case of a sonless proprietor, of his male 
collaterals. [223G-H] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
(c) The degrees of collaterals eligible to contest an alienation on 
the basis of the above custom being not limited by the custom itself, 
there arose a need to . enact certain restrictions in respect of suits in 
which the alienati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.