MULA AND OTHERS versus GODHU AND OTHERS

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 28-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
MULA AND OTHERS 
v. 
GODHU AND OTHERS 
August 28, 1969 
129 
[J, M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JI.) 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1931 s. 31-Amendment by Punjab Act JO 
of 1960-Amendment retrospective 
in 
operation-Pre..emptors' 
rights 
determined by trial court decree---Thereafter amendment taking away pro-
perty rights on which rights of pre-emption were based--'Jf pre-emp!ors' 
right of appeal affected. 
After the land in suit was sold in June, 1957, for an ostensible sum of 
Rs. 1,35,000/-, the appellants and respondents l to 3 instituted two se-
parate suits for pre·emp~ions in which the sale price inserted in the sale 
deed was also questioned. The two suits were consolidated and the plain-
~iffs in each suit were ioined as defendants in the other suit under section 
l8 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. 
The vendees thereafter admitted 
ihe rights of pre-emptors in both the suits conceding that a decree may be 
passed in their favour. 
The appellants accepted the sale 
price of Rs. 
1,35,000 on or before 30th July 1!>58 and although respondents l to 3 
wanted this issue to be decided on the merits, the trial court passed a 
decree in both the suits granting respondents l to 3 the right to pre-
emption in the, first instance on payment of Rs. 1,35,000 and, on their 
failur°'- to so pay, holding the appellants entitled to exercise the right to 
pre-emption on paym~nt of the said amount on or before 30th October 
1958. 
In an appeal to the High Court, respondents 1 to 3 challenged 
the 
correctness of the amount of the deposit to be made. Allowing the appeal, 
the High Court reduced the amount of deposit to Rs. 1,05,800/-and directed 
re1pondents I to 3 to deposit the amount within three months. 
In an appeal by the appellants tv this Court aga;nst the decision of 
the High Court, a preliminary objection was taken challenging the appel-
lants' right to ap~eal; it was contended that the appellants had based their 
right to pre-emption in their suit on the ground of their bein~ proprietors 
of the village where the land was situated. They were deprived of that 
rijht by the amendment of section 31 of the Punia_b Pre·e!"~tion Act ,bY 
Punjab Act 10 of 1960 which amendment was retrospe.cl!ve 1.n its op7rat1on 
and prohibited the Courts from passing any decree mconststent with the 
amended Act. 
On the other hand it was contended 
inter alia 
for the appellants 
that they had 
already secured a decree 
in their, 
favou~ 
by 
the 
trial court which had become final and with the terms of. which they had 
complied; in the present app
1eal they were merely seeking mod1ficat!on 
f the decree of the High Court in favour of respondents l to 3 by getting 
~he amount of pre-emption money. e:iha~ced to Rs. 1.'35,000/- without 
claiming any rights of pre-emPtion 1n their own favo~r, furthermore, .the 
only appeal preferred by respondent' 1. to 3 to the High Court ~a,s from 
the decree in their own suit and for this reason also t~e de:ee in f1v~rr· 
of the appellants bY the trial court had become conclusive an unassa1 a e . . , 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970]2 S.C.R. 
HELD 
Upholding the prelimnary objection, 
Ill was 11ot open to this Court to PflSS a decree of pr~-eniption in favour 
of the appellants who were deprived' by the Amendment Act of I 960 of 
their right to secure such a decree. [133 C-DJ 
The contention that the decree in the appellants' suit had become final 
and the High Court's order was only .in relation to the suit of respondents 
1 to 3 ignored the scheme of s. 28 of the Act read with 0.20, r. 14, C.P.C. 
which does not postulate decrees of pre-emption in favour of rival pre-
emptors on payment of different amounts of purchase money in respect 
of the same sale. 
Such a cour-e may lead to c-Jnfiicting decisions on the. 
question of value of the property sought to be pre-empted for the purposes 
of a p;e-ernption suit. 
Besides, the appellants' right to pre-emp_t the sale 
under the unamended law was admittedly inferior to that of respondents 
I to 3 and the appellants could only be held entitled to exercise their right 
after the failure of those re<>pondents to comply with the terms of (he 
decreo in their favour. [133 E-G] 
, Ram Swarup v. Munshi and Others, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858; referred to. 
C;;·1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1156 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 6, 1967 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Regula_r Fir

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