RAMJILAL AND ORS. ETC. versus GHISA RAM ETC.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 24-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAMJILAL AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
GHISA RAM ETC. 
JANUARY 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913: 
C 
S. 15(J)(b}-Entitlement to pre-emption-Suit filed by co-
owne1~Decreed by tlial Cowt-Confinned in Jim appeal-Second appeal 
dismissed-Appeal to Supreme Cowt--Pending appeal Haryana Pre-emption 
Amendment Act, 1995 came into forcc---Right of pre-emption of co-owners 
taken away-Held, appeal in continuation of 01iginal proceedings-Right and 
remedy-Should be available not only 011 the date of sale but also on the date 
D of suit, decree and disposal of appeal-Pending appeal the right has been 
taken away by the amending Act, the 1ight to pre-emption is lost-Hence suit 
for pre-enzption not 1naintainabll~a1yana Pre-enzption Aniendnient Act, 
1995. 
E 
F 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
Section 57----All Acts of State Legislature and Parliament-Taking judi-
cial notice of----Hmyana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4017 of 
1983 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.83 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 378 of 1983. 
D.V. Sehgal, D.S. Tewatia, AK. Goel, Mrs. Sheela Goel, P. Narasim-
han, R.S. Sodhi, K.K. Mohan and Ms. Geetanjali Mohan for the appearing 
G parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted in the SLP. 
H 
Substitution allowed. 
974 
.. 
RAMJILALv. GHISARAM 
975 
These appeals were referred to a larger Bench by order of this Court 
A 
made on lOlh May, 1994. The facts in C.A. No. 4017 are sufficient for 
disposal of these appeals. 
The facts are that on July 16, 1979, certain lands situated in Kutiyana 
Tchsil & District Sirsa were sold by Mathri, Dilawar and Santosh Kumar B 
to the appellants by registered sale deed dated June 16, 1979. The respon-
dent filed Suit No. 581/80 in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa under 
Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 on July 18, 1980 for 
pre-emption of the land from the appellants on the premise that the lands 
originally belonged lo one Shri Ram who died in the year 1944. His widow 
Dhapan had remained in possession as Widow's Estate. She cannot be said C 
to have inherited the property through her husband. She had no right to 
sell the lands to the appellants as she remained limited owner. Therefore, 
being a co-owner of Shri Ram, the respondent is entitled to pre-emption 
of the lands sold by Dhapan to the appellants. Accepting the contention 
of the respondent, the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, it was D 
confirmed. Second appeal was dismissed. Thus these appeals by special 
leave. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enlarges the 
\Vi(h1\vs' estate known to sastric law; removed the fetters on possession and 
blossom into an absolute right to the wido\v. 
E 
Pending appeals, the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 
(Act No. 10 of 1995) came into force w.e.f. July 7, 1995. The question 
arises: whether the respondents are entitled to pre-emption. This con-
troversy was considered by this Court Karan Singh & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh 
(Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos. 14362 & 14372 of 1986 
decided on 24th January, 1996 by a Bench of which two of us [K. Ramas-
F 
wamy & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.] were members. Therein, it was held that the 
appeal was continuation of original proceedings. When the appellate court 
has seisin of the whole case, the entire controversy would be at large and 
the issue would be open for reconsideration. Thus the whole case is at 
large. For the purpose of pre-emption, the right and remedy must be 
available not only on the date of the sale but also on the date of the suit G 
as well as on the date when the decree is made and is finally to be affirmed 
or need to be modified at the time of the disposal of the appeal. Since the 
appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, the right and the 
remedy should continue to subsist till this Court decides the controversy, 
if the appeal is presented and is pending disposal. Since the statute had H 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
intervened and the Act has taken away the right of pre-emption of the 
co-owners and confined the right and remedy to be only in favour of the 
tenants, the respondents have lost their right of pre-emption. In other 
Words, co-owners' right of pre-emption has been taken away by amendment 
to the Act. Consequentially, the respondents have lost the right, 

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