Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a civil suit for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 concerning agricultural land situated in Kutiyana Tehsil, District Sirsa. The appellants were the purchasers of the land, while the respondent was a co-owner who claimed a superior right to pre-empt the sale. The original owner, Shri Ram, died in 1944, and his widow Dhapan remained in possession as a limited owner under the widow's estate. In 1979, certain lands were sold by Mathri, Dilawar and Santosh Kumar to the appellants by a registered sale deed. The respondent filed Suit No.581/80 on July 18, 1980 in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Sirsa under Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, asserting that Dhapan, as a widow, had no right to sell the lands because she was only a limited owner, and that being a co-owner of Shri Ram, the respondent was entitled to pre-empt the sale. The trial court accepted this contention and decreed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the decree, and the second appeal was dismissed. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. During the pendency of the appeals, the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 (Act No.10 of 1995) came into force with effect from July 7, 1995. This amendment took away the right of pre-emption from co-owners and confined the right and remedy only to tenants. The Supreme Court, following its recent decision in Karan Singh & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and that the entire controversy remains at large before the appellate court. Therefore, for a pre-emption suit to succeed, the right and remedy must be available not only on the date of sale and the date of suit but also on the date when the decree is made and finally affirmed or modified at the appellate stage. Since the amendment had intervened and taken away the co-owners' right of pre-emption, the respondent lost the right pending appeal. The Court further observed that under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is bound to take judicial notice of all laws in force in India, including State legislative amendments. Accordingly, taking judicial notice of the change in law, the Court held that the suit for pre-emption was no longer maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the suits were dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Pre-emption - Subsequent Amendment - Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 - Right and remedy must subsist at all stages of litigation including appeal - Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Section 15(1)(b) - The respondent co-owner filed a suit for pre-emption which was pending in appeal when the Haryana Amendment Act, 1995 removed co-owners' right of pre-emption and confined the right to tenants. The Court held that an appeal is a continuation of original proceedings and the entire controversy remains at large; therefore the right and remedy must continue to subsist till final disposal. Since the amendment took away the co-owner's right, the respondent lost the right pending appeal and the suit became not maintainable. Held that appeals allowed and suits dismissed (Paras Not mentioned). B) Evidence - Judicial Notice - Section 57 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Courts are bound to take judicial notice of all laws in force in India, including State legislative amendments. The Court took notice of the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 even though it came into force after the lower court decrees, and applied it to the pending appeal to extinguish the pre-emption right. Held that judicial notice is mandatory and affects pending litigation (Paras Not mentioned). C) Hindu Law - Widow's Estate - Section 14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The judgment noted that a Hindu widow's limited estate enlarges into an absolute right, removing fetters on possession. However, the case was decided on the subsequent amendment to the pre-emption law rather than on the widow's right to sell. Held that the pre-emption suit failed because the co-owner's right was taken away by statute (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent co-owner's right of pre-emption under Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 survived after the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 came into force during pendency of the appeal, and whether an appeal is a continuation of original proceedings for applying change in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits for pre-emption as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- An appeal is a continuation of original proceedings
- pre-emption right and remedy must exist on date of sale
- suit
- decree
- and appellate disposal
- subsequent Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act
- 1995 confined pre-emption right to tenants
- extinguishing co-owners' pending claims
- courts must take judicial notice of legislative changes under Section 57 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
