9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 of the Agra Pre-emption Act, 1922. 2. Whether a defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption by acquiring an interest in the mahal after the institution of the suit but before the decree. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 of the Agra Pre-emption Act, 1922: The primary question referred to the Full Bench was whether Sections 19 and 20 of the Agra Pre-emption Act, 1922, allow a defendant vendee to defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption by acquiring an interest in the mahal after the institution of the suit but before the decree. The Court acknowledged that the previous law allowed such an acquisition to defeat the plaintiff's right if it occurred before the decree. The main consideration was whether the Act of 1922 altered this established law. Section 20 Analysis: - Section 20 states: "No suit for pre-emption shall lie where the purchaser... has acquired an indefeasible interest in the mahal which, if existing at the date of the sale or foreclosure, would have barred the suit." - The defendant argued that the absence of the words "prior to the institution of such suit" in the second portion of Section 20 implied that acquisitions after the suit but before the decree should also bar the suit. - The Court, however, interpreted that the phrase "No suit for pre-emption shall lie" indicates that the judgment must be based on the facts at the date of the suit, not subsequent acquisitions. Therefore, Section 20 does not support the defendant's contention. Section 19 Analysis: - Section 19 states: "No decree for pre-emption shall be passed in favour of any person unless he has a subsisting right of pre-emption at the time of the decree." - Historically, the plaintiff pre-emptor needed a subsisting right at the date of the decree, and this right could be defeated by the defendant's acquisition of an interest after the suit but before the decree. - The Court found no clear legislative intent in the Act of 1922 to alter this established law. Thus, under Section 19, the plaintiff's right can still be defeated by the defendant's acquisition of an interest before the decree. 2. Whether a defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption by acquiring an interest in the mahal after the institution of the suit but before the decree: The Full Bench concluded that: - Section 20 does not concern acquisitions made after the institution of the suit. - Section 19, however, maintains the previous law, allowing the defendant to defeat the plaintiff's right by acquiring an interest before the decree. Separate Judgments: Boys, J.: - Emphasized that the law prior to the Act allowed the defendant to defeat the plaintiff's right by acquiring an interest before the decree. - Concluded that the legislature did not intend to alter this law through the Act of 1922. King, J.: - Agreed with Boys, J., but added that the marginal notes of the Act, which are considered part of the legislative process, support the interpretation that Section 20 applies only to pre-suit acquisitions. - Affirmed that Section 19 continues the old rule, defeating the plaintiff's right if the defendant acquires an interest before the decree. Kendall, J.: - Concurred with the interpretations of Sections 19 and 20 provided by Boys and King, JJ. - Supported the use of marginal notes for interpreting the statute, based on his experience with legislative procedures. Order of the Court: - The reference was returned with the answer that the plaintiff's right of pre-emption is not defeated by Section 20 but is defeated by Section 19. - Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs.
|
