Case Note & Summary
In this appeal before the Supreme Court, the dispute concerned the right of pre-emption over agricultural land under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The original plaintiff, Bhagwan Singh, had sold 48 canals of undivided joint family property in specie to three strangers on June 15, 1978. Subsequently, those vendees sold portions of the land to the appellants. Bhagwan Singh then filed a suit for pre-emption claiming to be a co-owner and thus entitled to pre-empt the sale to the appellants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it, and the High Court upheld the decree in second appeal. During pendency of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the Haryana legislature amended Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act by Amendment Act 10 of 1995, substituting the provision so that only tenants holding land under the vendor would have the right of pre-emption. The appellants contended that the respondent, having himself sold the land to strangers, could not claim pre-emption from purchasers who derived title from those strangers, and further that the amended law extinguished his right. The respondent argued that as a co-owner he had a statutory right to pre-empt to prevent strangers from entering the joint family property, and the subsequent amendment could not affect a decree already passed. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, by selling the land to strangers in specie, had himself inducted third parties into the joint family property, and therefore could not object to his vendees selling further and claim pre-emption. The Court applied the principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, holding that having sold the lands, the respondent could not plead invalidity of his vendees' title due to pre-emption rights. The Court also reiterated that the right of pre-emption must exist at the date of sale, the date of suit, and the date of decree. Since the appeal was pending, the whole matter was sub judice, and the Court could take judicial notice of the change in law and mould relief according to the amended provision. The Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995, which came into force during the pendency of the appeal, vested the right of pre-emption only in tenants. Consequently, the respondent no longer had any right to pre-empt under the amended law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the appellate court, restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, and directed parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Pre-emption - Right of Co-owner - Section 15 Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 - A co-owner who sold his undivided share to strangers cannot later exercise right of pre-emption against purchasers from those strangers - The plaintiff himself inducted strangers into joint family property by selling specified lands; he cannot object to his vendees selling further - Held that such co-owner cannot validly lay suit for pre-emption (Paras 2-4). B) Evidence - Estoppel - Section 115 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Pre-emption cases not exempt from estoppel - Plaintiff who sold land to strangers cannot plead invalidity of their title due to pre-emption right - Held that having sold the lands, he is estopped from claiming pre-emption (Paras 3-4). C) Statutory Interpretation - Amendment during appeal - Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 substituting Section 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act - Right of pre-emption must be available at date of sale, suit, and decree; appellate court can take judicial notice of change in law and mould relief - Even if decree granted before amendment, since appeal pending, entire issue at large - Held that after amendment vesting right only in tenants, co-owner has no right to pre-emption (Paras 4-5). D) Pre-emption - Tenant's right - Amended Section 15 by Haryana Act 10 of 1995 - Only tenant holding land under vendor has right of pre-emption - Court applied law as on date of judgment; appeal allowed and trial court dismissal restored (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a co-owner who sold his undivided share of joint family property to strangers can subsequently exercise right of pre-emption under Section 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913; whether the doctrine of estoppel bars such claim; whether the Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995, which came into force during pendency of appeal, extinguishes the right of pre-emption for co-owners and applies retrospectively to pending proceedings.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of High Court and decree of Appellate Court set aside; trial Court dismissal restored; suit dismissed with parties bearing own costs.
Law Points
- Right of pre-emption must exist at date of sale
- suit
- and decree
- co-owner who sells land to strangers cannot later claim pre-emption
- estoppel under Section 115 Evidence Act applies to pre-emption cases
- appellate court can take judicial notice of change in law and mould relief
- Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 vests pre-emption right only in tenants
- judgment of appellate court merges with trial court decree but entire issue at large during appeal.
