2001 (7) TMI 1243 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the trial court had wrongly dismissed the claim of pre-emptor and it is irrelevant that during the pendency of appeal land was sold in an execution proceeding in another suit? Whether the Section 3 of the Act is prospective or retrospective? Held that - Appeal dismissed. We have already quoted substituted section 15 of the amending Act but do not find that the amending Act either expressly or by necessary implication intended to supply an omission or to clear up a doubt as to the meaning of previous Section 15 of the parent Act.the amending Act being prospective in operation does not affect the rights of the parties to the litigation on the date of adjudication of the pre-emption suit and the appellate court is not required to take into account or give effect to the substituted Section 15 introduced by the amending Act.

Issues Involved

1. Effect of substituted Section 15 introduced by the Haryana Amendment Act, 1995 on the right of a co-sharer to pre-empt a sale during the pendency of an appeal.
2. Whether the appeal is a continuation of the suit and the impact of legislative changes during the pendency of the appeal on the maintainability of the suit and the rights of a co-sharer.
3. Retrospective operation of the Amending Act and its effect on the rights of parties in litigation.

Detailed Analysis

1. Effect of Substituted Section 15 on Right of Co-sharer

The core issue was the effect of substituted Section 15 introduced by the Haryana Amendment Act, 1995, which removed the right of a co-sharer to pre-empt a sale. The substituted Section 15 states: "The right of pre-emption in respect of sale of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest in tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor or vendors of the land or property sold or a part thereof."

The plaintiffs/respondents had obtained a decree for pre-emption from the trial court based on their status as co-sharers. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the Haryana Amendment Act, 1995 came into force, which extinguished the right of co-sharers to pre-empt a sale.

2. Appeal as Continuation of Suit and Legislative Changes

The question arose whether the appeal being a continuation of the suit, the legislative change (substituted Section 15) would affect the maintainability of the suit and the rights of the co-sharer. The appellants argued that since the amendment came into force during the pendency of the appeal, the right and remedy of the plaintiff stood extinguished, and the suit must fail. They relied on the decision in Ramjilal vs. Ghisa Ram, which held that the right to claim pre-emption must be available on the date when the decree is finally affirmed or modified at the time of disposal of the appeal.

Conversely, the respondents contended that the right of pre-emption must be proved on the date of the decree of the first court, and any subsequent legislative change should not affect the decree already passed.

3. Retrospective Operation of the Amending Act

The appellants further argued that the Amending Act was declaratory in nature and had retrospective effect, thus extinguishing the co-sharer's right even after the decree of the first court. They claimed that the Amending Act being beneficial legislation for the general good of citizens should be given retroactive operation. However, the respondents maintained that the Amending Act was not retrospective and did not affect the decree passed by the trial court.

The court analyzed various decisions and legal principles regarding the retrospective operation of statutes. It was established that a statute affecting substantive rights is presumed to be prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court found no indication in the Amending Act that it was intended to be retrospective.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the Amending Act of 1995, which introduced substituted Section 15, was not retrospective in operation. Therefore, it did not affect the rights of the parties on the date of adjudication of the pre-emption suit. The appellate court was not required to consider the legislative changes introduced by the Amending Act during the pendency of the appeal. The court approved the view taken in Didar Singh vs. Ishar Singh and held that the decision in Ramjilal vs. Ghisa Ram did not lay down the correct view of law.

Judgment

The appeals were dismissed, and the decree of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs/respondents was upheld. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →