GULRAJ SINGH versus MOTA SINGH

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 13-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
205 
GULRAJ SINGH 
v. 
MOTA SINGH 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
N. RA.IAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.J 
DeCTee-Pre-emption suit by illegitimate son and daughter 
of a female vendor-Whether the words "son or daughter of 
such female" used in Punjab Pre-emption Act, as amended, 
inc!ude an illegitimate son or daughter of such femalie-Puniab 
Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), as amended by Act X of 
1960, s. 15(2)(b). 
The appellants-illegitimate son 
and daughter of one 
Sardarni-filed a suit to pre-empt the sale made by her of agri-
cultural land to the respondents. Both the trial court as well 
as the District Court on appeal granted to the appellants a dec-
ree for pre-emption, though to a limited extent. On second 
appeal by the respondents, the High Court directed the dismis-
sal of the suit on the ground that the appellants were not com-
prehended within the class of persons who were entitled to 
pre-emption under s. 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 
as amended by Act X of 1960. On appeal by Special Leave the 
appellants contended that the provision in s. 15 of the Pre-
emption Act must be read in conjunction with the Hindu 
Succession Act, 1956 which made provision for the devolution 
of property belonging to a female owner and that as under 
the latter enactment illegitimate children of the Hindu female 
were entitled to succeed to her property, it must be held that 
when the Punjab legislature used in 1960 the expression 'son 
or daughter' it meant a son or a daughter who would be en-
titled to succeed as an heir of a Hindu female. 
Held: The normal rule of construction of the words 
"child" "son" or udaughter" in a statute would include only 
legitimate children. No doubt, there might be express provi-
sion iri the statute itself to give these words a more extende<' 
meaning as to include also illegitimate children and s. 3(j) of tl 
Hindu Succession Act (Act XXX of 1956) furnishes a goo<. 
illustration of such a provision. It might even be that without 
an express provision in that regard the context might indicate 
lhat the words were used in a more comprehensive sense as 
indicating merely a blood relationship apart from the question 
of legitimacy. Section 15 contains no ""Press provision and 
the context, so far as it goes, is not capable of lending any 
support to such a construction. In the first place, the words 
"Son or daughter" occur more than once in that section. It 
was fairly conceded on behalf of the appellant that where ·the 
son or daughter of a male vendor is referred to, as in s. 15(1) 
the words mean only the legitimate issue of the vendor. If 
so, it cannot be that in· the case of a female vendor the words 
could have a different connotation. Even taking the case of 
a female vendor herself, there is a reference in s. 15(2}(a)(i) 
to the brother's son of such vendor. It could hardly be argued 
that a brother's illegitimate son is comprehended within those 
words. Therefore, it must be held that when s. 15(2)(b)(i) uses 
the words "son or daughter" it meant only a legitimate son 
and legitimate daughter of the female vendor. 
March 18 
1961 
Gult-aj Singh 
v. 
.Mota Sin1h 
A!!Y"ngar, J. 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
CIVIL . APPELLATE JURISDICTION-Civil Appeal No. 467 
of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree 
dated February 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Regular 
Second Appeal No. 837 of 1960. 
Bishan Narain and Naunit Lal, for the appellants. 
Yashpa/ Gandhi and S. D. Goswami, for the respon-
dents. 
March 13, 1964. The judgment of the Court was de-
livered by 
AYYANGAR, 
J.-Do the 
words 
"son 
or daughter 
of such female" occurring in s., 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-
emption Act, 1913 as amended by Act X of 1960 include an 
illegitimate son or illegitimate daughter of such female is 
the only question that arises in this appeal by special leave. 
The appellants are the illegitimate son and daughter of 
one Sardarni Prem Prakash Kaur. By a registered deed of 
sale dated December 1, 1956 the said lady sold 18 bighas, · 
1 biswas and 5! biswansis of agricultural land for a sum of 
Rs. I 0,000 /- to the respondents. The appellants filed a suit 
to pre-empt this sale. There was some dispute about the con-
sideration actually paid but we are not now concerned with 
it. Both the trial court as well as the District Court on appeal 
granted to the appellants a decree for pre-emption, though

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