Clarificatory amendments may apply retrospectively where they only make explicit the legislature's original intent in pending proceedings.

The amendment to section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 was treated as clarificatory and declaratory, because it merely made explicit the pre-existing legislative intent that the son or daughter of the female vendor could claim pre-emption where the property had devolved through the husband. On that construction, the 1964 amendment applied retrospectively to a pending appeal, and the appellate court was required to apply the amended provision. The respondent's right of pre-emption was therefore upheld and the decree in her favour remained affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment made to section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 by the Punjab Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1964 operated retrospectively so as to sustain the pre-emption decree in a pending appeal.

Analysis: The relevant scheme of section 15 showed that the right of pre-emption under clause (b) was intended to vest in the son or daughter of the female vendor in relation to the husband through whom the property had devolved, and the 1964 insertion merely made that position explicit. The amendment was treated as clarificatory and declaratory rather than as creating a new right. Since the provision was read as reflecting the pre-existing legislative intent and as consistent with the object of confining pre-emption to the line of the last male holder, retrospective operation was justified and the appellate court was bound to apply the amended law to the pending matter.

Conclusion: The 1964 amendment operated retrospectively, and the respondent's right of pre-emption was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the respondent was entitled to pre-emption under the statutory scheme as properly construed, and the decree in her favour stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory or declaratory amendment may be applied retrospectively to pending proceedings where it merely makes explicit the legislature's original intent and does not create a new substantive right.

---