https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128119 A substituted pre-emption provision did not defeat a co-sharer's vested right where the trial court had already decreed the suit and the purchase money had been deposited. The appellate court was to assess the decree on the rights existing when the suit was adjudicated, unless later legislation clearly displaced those rights. The amending Act was treated as prospective because it contained no express retrospective language or necessary implication, and it was not merely declaratory. Accordingly, the later substitution of Section 15 could not extinguish rights already crystallised and adjudicated in a pending pre-emption appeal. en-us Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128119 A substituted pre-emption provision did not defeat a co-sharer's vested right where the trial court had already decreed the suit and the purchase money had been deposited. The appellate court was to assess the decree on the rights existing when the suit was adjudicated, unless later legislation clearly displaced those rights. The amending Act was treated as prospective because it contained no express retrospective language or necessary implication, and it was not merely declaratory. Accordingly, the later substitution of Section 15 could not extinguish rights already crystallised and adjudicated in a pending pre-emption appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128119