TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (10) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its instituted by the respondents against the respective appellants. The respondents' case was that the properties in suit had been sold by Aftab Rai on May 31, 1956, for Rs. 10,000/- to the appellants and it is these sales which they wanted to preempt. They alleged that they are the owners of agricultural land in Patti Aulakli and Patti Rode, in Mauza Marahar Kalan, and as such, they had the statutory right to claim pre-emption, under s. 15(c) (ii) and (iii). The appellants resisted this claim on the ground that the respective vendees from Aftab Rai had transferred by exchanges about 2 kenals out of the lands purchased by-them and as a result of the said exchanges the appellants had themselves become entitled to preempt the said sales ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the result, the High Court held that the plea made by the appellants was not well- founded in law and so, the respondents were entitled to pre- empt. As a result of this finding, the decrees passed by the lower appellate Court were reversed and the respondents' suits were decreed. The appellants then moved the Division Bench by Letters Patent appeals, but these appeals were dismissed. It is against the decrees thus passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent appeals that the appellants have come to this Court by special leave. We have already noticed that both the appellants and the respondents are claiming a right to preempt under s. 15(c) (ii) and (iii) of the Parent Act of 1913. On February 4, 1960, the amending Act No. 10 of J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....effect to the substantive provisions of the amending Act whether the appeal before it is one against a decree granting preemption or one refusing that relief," It was no doubt urged before the Court in that case that the words used in s. 31 did not justify the application of the amended provisions to proceedings pending before the appellate Court; them said words showed that the said provisions could be invoked only in cases which were pending before the trial Court. This contention was rejected and so, it must be taken to be settled that the provisions of s. 31 are retrospective and can be relied upon by the appellants in their present appeals before this Court. This position would undoubtedly have helped the appellants but for another ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and the conferment of this right like the destruction of their right under the deleted provisions of the unamended section must operate retrospectively. He, therefore, suggests that the respondents ought to be given an opportunity to prove their case under the fourth clause of s. 15(c) as amended. In this connection, he has referred us to the fact that this plea has been specifically taken by the respondents in their statement of the case before this Court. It is on this plea that the question about the effect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 arises. Mr. Achhru Ram contends that though s. 31 is retrospective and in that sense the rights to preempt which vested in the respondents at the time when they instituted the present suits ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amending Act on the date when this Court will pass a decree in the present appeals? If the rights created in favour of the tenants are not recognised and a decree is passed ignoring the said rights, that decree would be inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the amending Act, and s. 31 has clearly enjoined that no Court shall pass a decree which is inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act. The position, therefore, appears to be clear that when a decree is passed in a preemption matter pending before the appellate Court, that Court must refuse to recognise the right to preempt which was recognised by the unamended Act but has been dropped by the amending Act just as much as it must recognise rights which were not recognis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en full effect to, and that meets the argument that the right to preempt did not exist in the respondents at the time when the sale transactions in question took place. Therefore, we are satisfied that the respondents are entitled to claim that they should be given an opportunity to prove their case that as tenants of the lands in suit they have a right to claim preemption. Incidentally, when the respondents filed the present suits, they had a right to preempt under the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood at that time; by the amendment, that right has been taken away, but instead they claim another right by virtue of their status as tenants of the lands, and this right is, by the retrospective operation of s. 31, available to them.....