SHYAM SUNDER AND ANR. versus RAM KUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 31-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Y.K. SABHARWAL, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHY AM SUNDER AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
RAM KUMAR AND ANR. 
JULY 31, 2001 
[S.P. BHARUCHA. V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Y.K. 
B 
SABHARWAL AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
P1111jab Pre-emption Act-Section 15-Haryana Amendment Act, 1995-
Sale of suit lands-Right of co-sharers of the suit lands to pre-empt sale- C 
Trial Court decreed in favour of co-sharers-Right withdrawn through an 
amendment in the Act during pendency of appeal-Effect of-Consideration 
of the amendment by appellate Court-Held, right of pre-emption after decree 
of the suit is a vested right of the pre-emptor-Appellate Court cannot consider 
subsequent amendment in the Act during the pendency of appeal and take 
away the vested right accrued on passing of the decree by Trial Court-The D 
amended section is not retrospective in operation either expressly or impliedly-
The amending Act is not a declaratory Act-Hence, it has no retrospective 
operation. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Beneficial legislation-Rule of benevolent construction-Applicability 
of-Held, the amending Act is a beneficial legislation-Rule of benevolent 
construction is not applicable while construing the amended Section of the 
Act-Cannot be construed that a beneficial legislation is always retrospective 
E 
in operation even though it is not stated in the 1egislation either expressly or F 
impliedly. 
' 
Appellants purchased suit lands from vendors through a sale deed. 
Respondents tiled a suit before Trial Court claiming preferential right to pre-
empt the sale on the ground that they were co-sharers of the suit lands. The 
suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents. The G 
respondents deposited required purchase money under Order 20 Rule 14 
CPC. The appellants were not successful both before the Appellate Court and. 
High Court. Hence they approached this Court. During pendency of the 
appeal. Section IS(l)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (Act) was substituted 
by a new Section 15 through Haryana Amendment Act, 1995 (amending Act) 
1 1 'i 
H 
I 16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A whereby the right of a co-sharer to pre-empt a sale was withdrawn. When 
the appeals came up for hearing before this Court, the Bench, on finding two 
conflicting decisions of this Court in Didar Singh etc. etc. v. Ishar Singh (dead) 
by lrs. etc. etc., (1995) I Scale I and Ramjilal and Ors., etc. v. Ghisa Ram etc., 
JT (1996) 2 SC 649 on the question of the effect of the amendment made in 
B 1995, referred the appeals to a Constitution Bench. 
The appellants contended that the respondents' right as a co-sharer to 
pre-empt sale had been extinguisl1ed in view of substituted Section 15 of the 
Act; that the appeal being continuation of the suit, this Court is competent to 
take into account the legislative changes made in the Act; that the powers of 
C appellate court are not restricted only to see whether the decision of the Trial 
court was correct on the basis of rights of the parties on the date of 
adjudication of suit but also to consider and give effect to subsequent changes 
in law whereby a co-sharer's right of pre-emption has been taken away during 
the pendency of the appeal; that a substituted section in an Act introduced 
by an amending Act is to be treated having retroactive operation; that the 
D amending Act being declaratory in nature, has retrospective effect and 
consequently whatever the right the respondent had on the date of decree of 
the suit stood extinguished; and that the amending Act, which is a beneficial 
legislation passed for general good of citizens would have retroactive operation 
by application of the rule of benevolent construction. 
E 
The respondent contended that in a suit for pre-emption, a claimant 
has to prove his right on the date of the decree of the Trial Court and loss of 
the right after the date of the decree by an act beyond his control or 
subsequent changes in law would not affect the claim in the suit; that the 
amending Act subsequent to the date of decree of the Trial Court has no effect 
F on the maintainability of the suit; that assuming the appeal being continuation 
of the suit, the amending Act has no retrospective operation which would 
affect the decree of the Trial Court; that in view of provisions of Order 20 
Rule 14 CPC, the title to the property had already been passed on the deposit 
of purchase money and, therefore, the amending Act does not affect the title 
acquired by them. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the 

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