Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + Other Indian Laws - 1942 (5) TMI Other This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1942 (5) TMI 5 - Other - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938.
2. Applicability of Section 298(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. Whether the impugned Act discriminates on the ground of descent alone.
4. Retrospective application of the impugned Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938:
The primary question was whether the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, which sought to void benami transactions where the beneficial owner was not a member of an agricultural tribe, was valid. The trial court had held the Act ultra vires the Punjab Legislative Assembly under Sections 292 and 298(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The High Court, agreeing with the trial court, found the Act invalid under Section 298(1).

2. Applicability of Section 298(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935:
Section 298(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, place of birth, descent, or color in acquiring, holding, or disposing of property. The High Court held that the impugned Act contravened Section 298(1) as it prevented persons not descended from agricultural tribes from holding property.

3. Whether the impugned Act discriminates on the ground of descent alone:
The argument centered on whether the impugned Act discriminated solely based on descent. The notifications under Section 4 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, defined agricultural tribes based on descent and residence. The impugned Act was found to discriminate on the ground of descent alone, as it voided transactions where the beneficial owner did not belong to an agricultural tribe, thus contravening Section 298(1).

4. Retrospective application of the impugned Act:
The impugned Act sought to void transactions both before and after its enactment. The High Court held that the word "prohibit" in Section 298(2) could not include the nullification of past transactions. Thus, the retrospective application of the impugned Act was not saved by Section 298(2).

Separate Judgments:

John Beaumont, J.:
John Beaumont, J., dissented, arguing that the principal Act was not discriminatory solely on the ground of descent. He opined that the impugned Act aimed to prevent evasion of the principal Act and was not based solely on descent. He would have allowed the appeal and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit.

Maurice Gwyer, C.J., and Srinivasa Varadachariar, J.:
Maurice Gwyer, C.J., concurred with Srinivasa Varadachariar, J., who delivered the majority judgment. They found the impugned Act discriminatory on the ground of descent alone and thus inoperative to the extent it contravened Section 298(1). They directed the High Court to frame proper issues and remit the case to the trial court for further trial and decision.

Conclusion:
The Federal Court set aside the High Court's decree and remitted the case for further trial, directing that proper issues be framed in light of the observations made in the judgment. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs in all courts.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates