Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a claim for pre-emption of agricultural land sold by a widow to the appellants. The respondent, a daughter of the deceased landowner from another wife, sought to exercise her right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Santa Singh owned land, died leaving a widow Sobhi and daughter Jai Kaur. On 3 February 1958, Sobhi sold the land to the appellants, and Jai Kaur filed a suit for possession by pre-emption. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appeal was dismissed. On second appeal, a single judge of the High Court held that Jai Kaur, not being the vendor's daughter, had no right under section 15(2) as amended in 1960. She then filed a Letters Patent appeal. Meanwhile, the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1964, inserted the words ‘husband of the’ before ‘female’ in clause (b) of section 15(2). The division bench relied on this amendment, held it retrospective, and decreed the suit. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the 1964 amendment operated retrospectively to apply to the pending suit. The appellants argued the amendment was prospective; the respondent contended it was clarificatory. The Court examined the scheme of section 15(2), noting that the right of pre-emption was confined to lineal descendants of the last male holder. It reasoned that even without the 1964 insertion, ‘son or daughter of such female’ must mean son or daughter of the husband of the female, encompassing step-children. The 1964 amendment was therefore declaratory and curative, attracting retrospective operation. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that Jai Kaur was entitled to pre-empt even before the amendment, which merely removed any doubts.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Right of Pre-emption - Meaning of 'Son or Daughter' - Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Section 15(2)(b) - The court interpreted the phrase 'son or daughter of such female' in clause (b) to refer to the son or daughter of the husband of the female vendor. The entire scheme of Section 15(2) confines the right of pre-emption to the issues of the last male holder from whom the property came by inheritance. Thus, the step-daughter (daughter of the vendor's husband from another wife) was entitled to pre-empt even without the 1964 amendment. Held, the provision included step-children as lineal descendants of the last male holder. B) Retrospective Operation - Clarificatory Amendment - Retroactivity of Curative Statute - Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1964 - The 1964 amendment inserting the words 'husband of the' was merely clarificatory and declaratory, resolving pre-existing doubts. As a curative statute, it was given retrospective operation, thereby affirming the respondent's pre-emption right in pending proceedings. Held, the respondent was entitled to exercise her right of pre-emption under paragraph First of clause (b) before the amendment, and the amendment removed any doubts.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1964, which inserted words 'husband of the' in section 15(2)(b), operates retrospectively to enable a step-daughter to claim pre-emption in a pending suit.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The respondent was entitled to exercise right of pre-emption under paragraph First of clause (b) of section 15(2) even before the 1964 amendment; the amendment was given retrospective operation.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Right of pre-emption under section 15(2)(b) of Punjab Pre-emption Act
- 1913 vests in son or daughter of husband of female vendor
- including step-child
- scheme of section 15(2) confines pre-emption to lineal descendants of last male holder
- Amendment Act of 1964 was clarificatory and declaratory
- hence retrospective
- curative statute to be given retroactive operation
