Retroactive abolition of customary challenge to alienations does not automatically bar separate Hindu law claims.

Section 7 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, as amended in 1973, was treated as retroactive so it applied to pending suits and appeals, because an appeal is a continuation of the suit and the legislature clearly intended to end the customary power to contest alienations from the specified cut-off date. The amendment abrogated the custom-based right to challenge alienations, but it did not automatically extinguish independent claims under Hindu law. Matters not examined on a Hindu law footing therefore required reconsideration on remand, with liberty to adduce further evidence if necessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 7 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act as amended by the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973 was retroactive and applicable to pending proceedings; (ii) whether the amendment merely abolished the custom of contesting alienations contrary to custom or also affected the parties' rights under Hindu law.

Issue (i): Whether section 7 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act as amended by the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973 was retroactive and applicable to pending proceedings.

Analysis: The right to contest an alienation was treated as a continuing right in a pending suit and appeal, because an appeal is a continuation of the suit. The amended provision was framed in clear language and was intended to put an end to the custom from the specified cut-off date. A provision that withdraws a right to contest pending matters may operate on existing proceedings without necessarily being retrospectively punitive or destroying vested rights in the prohibited sense.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be retroactive and applicable to pending proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment merely abolished the custom of contesting alienations contrary to custom or also affected the parties' rights under Hindu law.

Analysis: The pre-existing custom had been confirmed and regulated by earlier statutes, and the amendment was enacted to abolish the power to contest alienations on the ground of custom. The statute did not transform the custom into a statutory right so as to displace Hindu law in cases not governed by the abolished custom. Accordingly, where the High Court had not examined the cases on the footing of Hindu law, those matters required consideration on remand.

Conclusion: The custom-based right to contest was taken away, but the parties' claims under Hindu law were left open for fresh examination.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to alienations on the ground of custom failed for pending matters, but the cases were remitted for consideration of the appellants' rights under Hindu law, with liberty to adduce further evidence if necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute clearly takes away a customary right to contest alienations, the change applies to pending proceedings, yet it does not automatically extinguish independent rights arising under Hindu law unless the statute expressly does so.

---