Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAMJILAL & ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GHISA RAM ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (2) 649 1996 SCALE (2)401
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted in the SLP. Substitution allowed.
These appeals were referred to a larger Bench by order
of this Court made on 10th May, 1994. The facts in C.A.
No.4017 are sufficient for disposal of these appeals.
The facts are that on July 16, 1979, certain lands
situated in Kutiyana Tehsil & District Sirsa were sold by
Mathri, Dilawar and Santosh Kumar to the appellants by
registered sale deed dated June 16, 1979. The respondent
filed Suit No.581/80 in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class,
Sirsa under Section 15(l)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act,
1913 on July 18, 1980 for preemption of the land from the
appellants on the premise that the lands originally belonged
to one Shri Ram who died in the year 1944. His widow Dhapan
had remained in possession as Widow’s Estate. She cannot be
said to have inherited the property through her husband. She
had no right to sell the lands to the appellants as she
remained limited owner. Therefore, being a co-owner of Shri
Ram, the respondent is entitled to preemption of the lands
sold by Dhapan to the appellants. Accepting the contention
of the respondent, the trial Court decreed the suit. On
appeal, it was confirmed. Second appeal was dismissed. Thus
these appeals by special leave. Section 14(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 enlarges the widows’ estate known to
sastric law; removed the fetters on possession and blossom
into an absolute right to the widow.
Pending appeals, the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act,
1995 fact No.10 of 1995) came into force w.e.f July 7, 1995.
The question arises: whether the respondents are entitled to
pre-emption. This controversy was considered by this Court
Karan Singh & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors.
[C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos.14362 & 14372 of 1986] decided on 24th
January, 1996 by a Bench of which two of us [K.Ramaswamy &
G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.] were members. Therein, it was held that
the appeal was continuation of original proceedings. When
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the appellate court has season of the whole case, the entire
controversy would be at large and the issue would be open
for reconsideration. Thus the whole case is at large. For
the purpose of pre-emption, the right and remedy must be
available not only on the date of the sale but also on the
date of the suit as well as on the date when the decree is
made and is finally to be affirmed or need to be modified at
the time of the disposal of the appeal. Since the appeal is
a continuation of the original proceedings, the right and
the remedy should continue to subsist till this Court
decides the controversy, if the appeal is presented and is
pending disposal. Since the statute had intervened and the
Act has taken away the right of pre-emption of the co-owners
and confined the right and remedy to be only in favour of
the tenants, the respondents have lost their right of
preemption. In other words, co-owners’ right of pre-emption
has been taken away by amendment to the Act.
Consequentially, the respondents have lost the right,
pending the appeals. This Court under Section 57 of the
Indian Evidence Act shall take judicial notice of all the
laws in force in the territory of India. The Court would
take judicial notice of the Acts of State Legislature and
the Parliament. Accordingly, taking notice of the change in
law the right end remedy to the respondent have been lost.
As a result, the suit for pre-emption is not maintainable.
The main appeal as well as connected appeals are
accordingly allowed. Consequentially, the suits stand
dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.