MAHADEOLAL KANODIA versus THE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 578 · Decided: 20-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
• [1960] 
z96o · 
proceedings in such a. suit a.re not binding on him so 
Rajkumarl. 
as to affect his rights und.er the second mortgage. He 
Kaushalya v.V; can thus follow the property by suing his mortgagor, 
. 
v. 
even though it may have been sold under the decree 
. ilawaPritmaSingliofa.U: earlier mortgagee in a. suit to which he was not 
a.. pa.rty .• __ Therefore, .the interest of the prior mort-
Wa,,.hoo' J • . · gagee or the subsequent mortgagee, if any, would not . 
be affected by a decree passed on an application under 
s. 13 and there is no reason therefore to cut down the 
plain meaning of the words ·used in B. 2 (6}(c) on the 
ground that the proc~edings: under the .Act would 
prejudicially-. affect' the -rights• of: prior or puisne 
r96o 
April zo. 
mortgagees>•·• 
·' · · · . ., ·-· 
_ • • r "' 
• There is therefore no.· force· in this appeal and it is 
hereby dismissed with costs." 
.... 
·: · 
« ·:··r:, 
_; ~-. ,'· -'. ;:T · .... · App~l dis1nissed. ,·· 
'.,, 
' -
.. , :r ,li ·.: .~.:,:~IAHAi>EOL.Ail·KANODIA,.· .. 
rr: l·i'. -, 11 
-
-
'. •• 
-i ~-1 
-
. 
~ ;_i ::· . .i 
;_· 
•l .. ~:f-, · 
·:.~·:_ 
-· 
·' '«;·_,.::-,~ ,,v•, '•' 
,-,;U'i 
~. 
' ('. ":.<:· 
' 
/ 
>, : .-THE -.AD~IINISTRATOR-GENERµ. OF-. 
.; ... , ,, ; .:"' <:, ... WESTBENGA.L.• ;'-:\'-·" 
· 
-
, 
' 
:• 
j 
• 
' ' 
. (P .. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR,- K. N; . w ANCHOO 
. : .•·· "' :.':and K. C. DAs Gm.A.; JJ:)- - .. 
'!\~-,~--
: .• 
_-:-.-~_!;:;i 
,,_.',:.,_~.·-
~-' •.. '.:;; -· 
.. , • .Thika Tenancy..,-Decree for possession against tenant-Applica-
iicln'f<W ·rdiefby lenant-,-Amendment. of Act with- retrospective 
'operation~Effect-:.fnterpretation of Statute-Principles· of construc-
tion~Thika Tenancy• Act (W:B. z of r949f; s. 28-Thika. Tenancy 
Amendment Act (W .B. 6 of r953). s.'I(z). ·. 
· 
-:: ··with a" view to i;ive protection to Thika' tenants against 
eviction and in certain.other matters, the West Bengal -Legisla-
ture enacted -the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Acti 1949 .. That Act 
. was amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Amendment Act, 
:i:g5j, which omitted s: 28 of the Act. The question for decision in 
- the appeal was whether . the cappellant against whom proceedings 
for' execution of a decree for ejectment was pending, who had appli~ 
__ 
. ed -for, relief under s; 28 when that section was in force, was - -
· entitled:to have his ;application ,disposed of in accordance with 
the provisions of s. 28, which had ceased to exist retrospectively 
though. it remained undisposed of 'on the date the Amendment 
Act came into force:· • · 
· · · · ' -
. '. . 
.. 
·: · · 
·· · 
",r; Held, thats, 1, 'sub-5: (2) Of the Calcutb. Thlka 'Tenanc{A.ct 
t953,• clearly intended that no reilef under s.' 28 of the brigfnal 
• 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
579 
Act should be given in cases pending for disposal on the date the 
amendment became effective and s. 28 ceased to exist retrospec-
tively. 
The principles applicable to interpretation of statutes are 
four-fold in nature,-
(r) such statntory provisions as create or take away substan-
tive rights are ordinarily prospective ; they can be retrospective 
if made so expressly or by necessary implication and the retros-
pective operation must be limited only to the extent to which it 
has been so made either expressly or by necessary implication, 
(2) the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from 
the words used by it, giving them their plain, normal, grammatical 
meaning, 
(3) if any provision of a legislation the purpose of which is to 
benefit a particular class of persons is ambiguous so that it is 
capable of two meanings the meaning which preserves the 
benefit should be adopted, 
C4) If the strict grammatical interpretation gives rise to an 
absurdity or inconsistency, such interpretation should be discarded 
and an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose will be 
put on the words, if necessary, even by modification of the 
language used : 
Held, also, that judicial decorum ought never to be ignored. 
Where one Division Bench or a Judge of a High Court is unable 
to distinguish a previous decision of another Division Bench or 
another Single Judge and holds the view that the ear lier decision 
was wrong, the matter shonld be referred to a larger Bench to 
avoid utter confusion. 
Deorajan Devi v. Satyadhan Ghosal, [1953] 58 C.W.N. 64, over-
ruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
·No. 303 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and d

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