SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR. versus HUKUM CHAND

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 22-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'..:i 
-~ 
~. 
SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR. 
v. 
HUKUM CHAND 
AUGUST 22, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913: 
. 
Pre-emption-Land transferred in favour of appellant-Suit filed by 
respondent for Pre-emption decreed on 27.8.1983-Decree affinned by Court 
of Appeal on 30.11.1983-Second appeal filed before High Court dismissed 
on 5.4.1984--Decree attaining finality-Proceedings for execution of decree by 
respondent-Objection taken by appellant that as only share in the land in 
question had been transferred the decree passed for pre- emption cannot be 
executed-Objection allowed by Executing Court-Revision preferred by 
respondent before High Court-Objection by appellant that as the relevant 
provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 had been declared to be 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Atam Prakash's case the decree 
passed shall be deemed to be nullity-High Court holding that notwithstand-
ing the judgment in the case of Atam Prakash the decree in the suit for 
pre-emption filed on behalf of the respondent was binding between the 
parties-Appeal-Held conclusion reached by High Court was correct-When 
the High Court allowed the civil revision filed on behalf of the respondent on 
20.3.1990 the decrees of the trial Court, the court of appeal and the High Court 
in second appeal had become final-As such the direction of this Court in 
Atam Prakash's Case that such decrees shall be binding inter-parties not-
withstanding the declaration of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, was fully 
· applicable in the present case. 
Section 15 (As notified on May 7, 1995) Held prospective in operation. 
Atma Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 249, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8755-56 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.90 of the Punjab & 
A-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Haryana High Court in C.R. Nos. 2552 and 2553of1988. 
H 
69 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Mela Ram Sharma K. B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the 
B 
c 
Appellants. 
Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These appeals have been filed, for setting aside the order dated 
March 20, 1990, passed by the High Court allowing the civil revision 
application which had been filed on behalf of the respondent - decree 
holder. 
• 
There is no dispute that the land in question was transferred in 
favour of the appellant No. 1 by one Kishan Chand and Jagdish Chand in 
the year 1980. Thereafter a suit for pre-emption was filed on behalf of the 
respondent. That suit was decreed on 27.8.1983. The appeal filed on behalf 
of the appellants was dismissed by the court of appeal on 30.11.1983. 
D Second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants was also dismissed by the 
High Court on 5.4.1984. Thereafter, the decree holder - respondent took 
steps for execution of the decree for pre-emption of the lands in question 
in the year 1984. An objection was taken before the executing court that 
as only share in the land in question had been transferred the decree 
E 
passed for pre-emption cannot be executed. That objection found favour 
with the executing court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 
executing court the respondent filed civil revision before the High Court 
which was allowed by the impugned order. The High Court after referring 
to the earlier judgments of the said court including the Full Bench judg-
ment observed : 
F 
G 
H 
"The proposition laid down in the Full Bench judgment, 
referred to above, has no applicability to the facts of the present 
case. In that case the question was as to whether the sale was of 
specific khasra No. out of the joint land. The question of getting 
the physical possession of the specific khasra nos. out of the joint 
holding is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, which provides as to how the decree for immovable property 
is to be executed. Admittedly, the decree is for specific khasra nos. 
which were sold to· the vendee by the vendor. That being so, the 
decree-holder is entitled to the physical possession of the specific 
khasra nos. though it may be open to the judgment-debtors to make 
' 
7 
SHANTI DEVI v. HUKUM CHAND 
71 
adjustments at the time of partition, if any." 
Faced with this situation aforesaid, on behalf of the appellants it was 
submitted before the High Court that as the relevant provisions of the 
Punjab Pre-emption Act,

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