RAM SARUP versus MUNSHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 30-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 19 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.AuzwllO. 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
RAM SARUP 
v. 
MUNSHI AND OTHERS 
(And Conneoted Appeals) 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. c. DAS 
GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR Bnd 
J, R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Pre-emption-Constitutional validity of enactment-Amen-
ding legislaiion providing tha.t no decree should be passsd for 
pre·emption in 
certain 
cases-Retrospective 
operation of 
pending a7,peal-Punjob Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab 17 
of 1887), s.3-Punjob Pre·trr·plicn Act, 1913(Funjab1af1913), 
as amended by Fur.jab Act 10 of 1960, "· 3(a),3(4),3(6),6,U, 
16, 23, ill-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)(/),19(6). 
Appeal-Abatement-Decree for pr.-emption against vendees 
-Appeal by vendees-Deal h of one app•llant pending appeal-
Legal re'/)1'ee~ntatives not brought on record-Maintainability of 
appeal. 
The owner of certain agricultural land in Punjab sold 
.__ 
it to the second respondent by a deed dated December 12, 1957. 
The son of the vendor claimed that he .had a right of pre-
emption and instituted a suit against the appellant who pur-
chased the land from the first respondent, and relied upon 
the provisions in s.15 (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. 
The appellant pleaded (1) that the right of Pre-emption con-
ferred bys. 15(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, had 
ceased to be enforceable on the repeal of the Punjab Alienation 
of Land Act, 1900, by the Adaptation of Laws (Third Amend-
ment) Order, 1951, in view of ss. 3(a),3(4), 6,14,23 of the 
Pre-emption Act of 1913, and (2) that, in any case, s. 15(a) 
>-
of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, was repugnant to Art. 
19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. 
Held, that (I) the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of 
Land Act, 1900, had no effect on the continued operation 
of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, and that the expression 
"agricultural land" in the later Act had to be read o.s if the 
"'-' 
definition of the Alienation of Land Act had been bodily\ __ 
tran1posed into it. 
-
Clark v. Bradlaugh,(1881)8 Q.B.D. 63, relied on. 
... 
~l s.c.k. 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS 
859 
(2) the effect of the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of 
Land Act,1900, was that the restrictions imposed by ss.14 and 
23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, would disappear, 
leaving the court with an unfettered power to grant decrees te 
those who satisfied the terms or s.15. 
( 3) the restriction on the right of free alienation imposed 
by s. 15(a)being intended (i) to preserve the integrity of the 
village and the village community, and (ii) to implement the 
agnatic rule of succession, are reasonable and culculated to 
further the interest of the general public. The provisions 
contained in s. 15(a) as it originally stood as well as in the 
modified form after the amendment effected by Act 10 of 
1960 do not transgress the limits of reasonableness required by 
Art. 19(5) of the Constitution and are valid. 
Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath, (1962) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 734 and 
Uttam Singh v. Ka1tar Singh & Others, A.I.R. 1954 Punjab 
55, relied on. 
In Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1961, the sale which give 
rise to the suit was under a deed dated December 29, 1949, 
in favour of the appellant and the first respondent's claim to 
pre-empt was based on s. 15(c)"thirdly" of the Punjab Pre-
emption Act, 1913. The suit was decreed by the trial court 
on November 8,1951 and when the matter was und~r appeal 
in which the question of the constitutional validity of s.15(c) 
"thirdly" was raised, the Act was amended by Punjab Act 10 
of 1960, by which, inter alia, ( 1 )s.15 of the original Act was 
repealed and in its place was substituted a new provision 
which omitted to confer a right of pre-emption in the case of 
persons "owning land in the estate" as the original s. 15(c) 
thirdly" had done, and(2) retrospective effect was given to the 
provisions contained in the Amending Act by the insertion of 
a new s. 31, which provided that "no court shall pass a 
decree in a suit for pre-emption whether instituted before or 
after the commencement of the Punjab Pre emption (Amend-
ment) Act, 1960, which is inconsistent with the provisions of 
the said Act." 
Held, ( 1) the restriction on the right of a vendor in ca11es 
arising out of s.19 (c)"thirdly" of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 
1913, was a reasonable one and that the provisions in the 
section were 
not 
repugnant to Art. 
19(l)(f) 
of the 
Constitution. 
Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath & Others. ( 1962) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
724 followed. 
/lif!lt S.<iili/J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.