LEKH RAJ (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS. versus RANJIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 16-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 542 
LEKH RAJ (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS. 
v. 
RANJIT SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1885 of2008) 
B 
AUGUST 16,2017 
(R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act. 1920 - Suit for 
declaration filed in respect of land- Trial court dismissed the suit -
C However, appellate court decreed the suit in favour of respondent 
which became final as it was not challenged by appellants -
Execution application - Challenged by judgment debtor-appellants 
- Executing court allowed the execution application - On appeal, 
appellate court and revisional court affirmed the order of executing 
court - In the instant appeal, judgment debtor-appellants raised 
D 
objection that th'e decree was rendered nullity in the light of 
amendment made in 1973 in Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) 
Act, 1920; that the rights of decree holder-respondent on which 
their suit was based were at the relevant time governed by the 
provisions of the Act but the amendment made in 1973 took away 
E 
F 
those customary rights; that the amendment was held retrospective 
in its operation by Supreme Court in Darshan Singh and Kesar 
Singh and hence the very basis of filing the suit stood withdrawn 
by reason of amendment and, therefore, the decree in question had 
become nullity - Held: It is clear from the fact that the suit was 
filed in 1962 whereas the appellate Court passed the decree in 1965 
and the amendment in the Act was introduced and came into force 
in 1973 - So the /is had already attained the finality much before 
the amendment came into force - Secondly. the amendment was held 
retroactive in nature and, therefore, it was applicable only to those 
proceedings, which were pending on the date when the amendment 
G came into force, i.e. 1973, or where the proceedings were initiated 
after the date of amendment - Moreover, the provisions of the 
Amendment Act of 1973 are applicable only to the State of Punjab 
whereas the case in hand arises out of State of Haryana - Thus, no 
interference with the impugned order called for - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908. 
H 
542 
LEKH RAJ (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS. v. RANJIT 
543 
SINGH & ORS. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
Decree - Execution of - Power of executing court - Held: 
The executing court cannot go behind the decree - Any enquiry 
into the objections would take the executing court behind the decree 
which is not permissible in law. 
Decree - Execution - Objections raised on facts - Could not B 
be enquired into execution proceedings. 
Legislation - Amendment - Rights of parties subsequent to 
amendment in law - Held: if the rights of the parties had already 
been crystallized then subsequent change in law would not take 
away such rights which had attained.finality due to /is coming to an 
end inter se the parties prior to such change - Punjab Custom (Power 
to Contest) Act, 1920 
Appeal - Fresh plea/objection - Held: When an objection is 
not even raised at any stage of the proceedings then it cannot be 
allowed to be raised for the .first time in appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The objection was neither raised before the 
Executing Court nor the first appellate Court and nor the High 
Court. In other words, when the objection was not even raised at 
any stage of the proceedings then it cannot be allowed to be raised 
for the first time in this appeal. Nothing prevented the judgment-
debtors to raise objection along with several other objections to 
enable the Courts to record their finding on such objection. It 
was, however, not done. Even otherwise, the objection had no 
merit for the simple reason that the suit and the appeal, which 
arose out of the suit, stood already decided much prior to the 
date of amendment coming into force. In other words, the suit/ 
appeal remained unaffected with the amendment. It is clear from 
the fact that the suit was filed in 1962 whereas the appellate Court 
passed the decree in 1965 and the amendment in the Act was 
introduced and came into force in 1973. So the /is had already 
attained the finality much before the amendment came into force. 
Second, the amendment was held retroactive in nature as would 
be clear from Para 4 of Kesar Singh. Third, the amendment being 
retroactive, it was applicable only to those proceedings, which 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A were pending on the date when the amendment came into force, 
i.e. 1973, or where the p

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