Rival pre-emptors appealed against a High Court decree reducing the pre-emption deposit for superior pre-emptors. The Supreme Court upheld a preliminary objection: the 1960 retrospective amendment to s. 31 barred passing any pre-emption decree in their favour, so they lacked locus standi; appeal dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
129
A
MULA AND OTHERS
v.
GODHU AND OTHERS
B
August 28, 1969
[J, M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JI.)
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1931 s. 31-Amendment by Punjab Act JO of 1960-Amendment retrospective in operation-Pre..emptors' rights determined by trial court decree---Thereafter amendment taking away property rights on which rights of pre-emption were based--'Jf pre-emp!ors' right of appeal affected. c After the land in suit was sold in June, 1957, for an ostensible sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-, the appellants and respondents l to 3 instituted two se- parate suits for pre·empions in which the sale price inserted in the sale deed was also questioned. The two suits were consolidated and the plainiffs in each suit were ioined as defendants in the other suit under section l8 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The vendees thereafter admitted D ihe rights of pre-emptors in both the suits conceding that a decree may be passed in their favour. The appellants accepted the sale price of Rs. 1,35,000 on or before 30th July 1!>58 and although respondents l to 3 wanted this issue to be decided on the merits, the trial court passed a decree in both the suits granting respondents l to 3 the right to preemption in the, first instance on payment of Rs. 1,35,000 and, on their failur°'- to so pay, holding the appellants entitled to exercise the right to E pre-emption on paym~nt of the said amount on or before 30th October 1958.
In an appeal to the High Court, respondents 1 to 3 challenged the correctness of the amount of the deposit to be made. Allowing the appeal, the High Court reduced the amount of deposit to Rs. 1,05,800/-and directed re1pondents I to 3 to deposit the amount within three months.
In an appeal by the appellants tv this Court aga;nst the decision of r the High Court, a preliminary objection was taken challenging the appellants' right to apeal; it was contended that the appellants had based their right to pre-emption in their suit on the ground of their bein proprietors of the village where the land was situated. They were deprived of that rijht by the amendment of section 31 of the Punia_b Pre·e!"~tion Act ,bY Punjab Act 10 of 1960 which amendment was retrospe.cl!ve 1.n its op7rat1on and prohibited the Courts from passing any decree mconststent with the amended Act.
G
On the other hand it was contended inter alia for the appellants that they had already secured a decree in their, favou~ by the trial court which had become final and with the terms of. which they had complied; in the present app 1eal they were merely seekingmod1ficat!on f the decree of the High Court in favour of respondents l to 3 by getting he amount of pre-emption money. e:ihaced to Rs. 1.'35,000/- without claiming any rights of pre-emPtion 1n their own favor, furthermore, .the H only appeal preferred by respondent' 1. to 3 to the High Court a,s from the decree in their own suit and for this reason also te de:ee in f1vrr· of the appellants bY the trial court had become conclusive an unassa1 a e . . ,
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970]2 S.C.R.
A
HELD Upholding the prelimnary objection,
Ill was 11ot open to this Court to PflSS a decree of pr~-eniption in favour of the appellants who were deprived' by the Amendment Act of I 960 of their right to secure such a decree. [133 C-DJ
The contention that the decree in the appellants' suit had become final and the High Court's order was only .in relation to the suit of respondents 1 to 3 ignored the scheme of s. 28 of the Act read with 0.20, r. 14, C.P.C. which does not postulate decrees of pre-emption in favour of rival preemptors on payment of different amounts of purchase money in respect of the same sale. Such a cour-e may lead to c-Jnfiicting decisions on the. question of value of the property sought to be pre-empted for the purposes of a p;e-ernption suit. Besides, the appellants' right to pre-emp_t the sale under the unamended law was admittedly inferior to that of respondents I to 3 and the appellants could only be held entitled to exercise their right after the failure of those re<>pondents to comply with the terms of (he decreo in their favour. [133 E-G]
B
c
, Ram Swarup v. Munshi and Others, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858; referred to. C;;·1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1156 of 1967.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 6, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Regula_r First Appeal No. 152 of 1958.
D
Brij Bans Kishore, Mahabir Prasad Jain and J. P. Gupta, for the appellants.
V. C. Mahajan and M. S. Gupta, for respondent Nos. 1 E and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J. This appeal on certificate has been preferred by one set of pre-emptors (plaintiffs in suit No. 556 of 1958) against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing ihe rival plaintiffs-pre-emptors' appeal by reducing the pre-emption money and passing a decree of pre-emp:ion on payment of Rs. 1,05,800/- instead of Rs. L35,000/- as directed by the trial Court.
F
On behalf of the rival pre-emptors (plaintiffs in suit No. 558 of 1958) who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in this Court, a prdiminary objection was taken to the competency of the present appeal. The appellants' right to appeal was challenged on the ground that the amendment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the Punjab Act X of 1960 had deprived them of their right of pre-emption with retrospective effect. The appellants had based their right of pre-emption in their suit on the. ground of their being proprietors of the village. They were deprived of this right by the Amending Act of 1960 and s. 31 of
G
H
MULA I'. GODHU (Du,., J.)
131
[1970] 2 S.CY
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. 132
in a pre-emption suit shall, when purchase money has not been paid in the Court, specify a day on or before which the same shall be paid and Order 20 r. 14(2)(b) provides inter alia that in so far as the claims decreed are different in degree, the claim of the inferior pre.-emptor shall not take effect unless and until the superior pre-emptor has failed to comply with the provisions of sub-rule I.
Respondents 1 to 3, feeling dissatisfied with the decision on the amounl of deposit to be made, preferred an appeal to the Punjab High Court. On January 6, 1967 the High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of deposit to Rs. 1,05,800/-. While framing the decree the High Court allowed the plaintiffspre-emptors a period of three months from January 6, 1967, for depositing in Court the amount of Rs. 1,05,800/- failing which their suit was directed to stand dismissed. Nothing was stated in the decree as regards the claim of the appellants. Attention of the High Court apparently does not seem to have been drawn to the provisions either of s. 28 of the Act or of Order 20, r. 14, Civil P.C or of para 3 of Chapter I-M(c) at page 59 of Volume I of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders. Para 3 aforesaid emphasises the importance of specifying a definite date· for the deposit of money in Court.
It may at this stage appropriately be observed that the omission to state in the decree the order in which the two rival claimants were entitled to exercise their right of pre-emption might have been due either to the fact that the appellants (who were impleaded as respondents in the High Court) in view of s. 31 as interpreted in Ram Swarup v. Munshi and Others(') did not press their claim and did not ask for the inclusion of a direction regarding their right in the High Court decree, or to the fact that they may have felt that having expressed their willingness in the trial Court to deposit Rs. 1,35,000/- it was no longer open to them to question this valuation. It is also not unlikely that in view of the decision in Ram Swarup's case(') the High Court thought that the only right of pre-emption subsisting on January 6, 1967 was that of respondents 1 to 3 and that there was, therefore, no occasion for making any consequential order in favour of the appellants under Order 41, r. 33 Civil P.C. The judgment of the High Court does not contain any discussion on the poin' as to why no reference was made to the appellants' claims. It would certainly have been more helpful if the High Court had stated something in its judgment on this aspect. In the circumstances of this case, however, we need say nothing more on this point.
It is against the decree of the High Court reducing the amount of deposit 1!0 be made by respondents 1 to 3 that the appellants-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(!) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858.
MULA v. GODHU (Dua, J.)
!33
A pre-emptors have come to this Court on appeal and their right to appeal is challenged on the ground that the existing law of preemption has retrospectively deprived them of their right to preempt by prohibiting the courts from passing a decree for pre-emption inconsistent with the Act as amended. The challenge seems to be well founded.
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
134
never appealed against and that the same has become final and binding on ail parties. The only appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3, according to this submission was from the decree in their own suit, with the result that the decree in favour of the appellants passed by the trial Court in their suit has by now become conclusive and unassailable. We cannot accept this submission. There is nothing on the record to show that the appeal presented in the High Court by respondents 1 to 3 was directed against the decree passed in thi:c:: suit. Apparently, the appeal was filed against the decree passed in the consolidated suits clealing with the rights of both the rival pre-emptors, and all the parties interested in the right of pre-emption were impleaded in the appeal. Besides, this contention seems to us to be only another way of putting the same argument, namely. that there can be two or more different determinations of the amount of pre-emption money in the two consolidated suits for pre-empting the sale in question. It also postulates a claim by an inferior pre-emptor to pre-empt the sale by making the deposit of the pre-emption money before the superior pre-emptor has failed to comply with the terms of the decree in his favour. This argument, as the foregoing discussion shows, is without merit. In the present case, a further question arises as to whether or not it was open to the appellants to ask the High Court not to vary the determination of pre-emption money in the appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3 without formally preferring a separate appeal from the other decree considered to havt~ been passed in the other suit because passing of such an inconsistent decree on appeal on the question of valuation would not be permissible in law. No argument on these line< was addressed in the High Court. The effect of this omission has not been canvassed in this Court either. We would, therefore, express no opinion on this aspect. The final decree relating to the rival claims of pre-emption in respect of the sale in question, however, seems to be that of the High Court which may well be considered to be binding on all the parties to it. And then, if the appellants' claim that the decree passed in their favour by the trial Court in their suit has already become final and their right is unaffected by the decree of the High Court, then they cannot be considered to be aggrieved by the impugned decree and, therefore, they cannot claim any locus standi to appeal against it.
From whichever point of view one looks at the position, · the appellants cannot claim a right of appeal from the decree of the High Court determining the pre-emption money to be Rs. 1 05,800, The right to appeal against that decree can only be exercised by a person whose claim of pre-emption in respect of the sale in question can ·be considered to have been adversely affected by it. The appeUants on their own argument possess no such right.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MULA v. GODHU (Dua, J.)
JJj
A The preliminary objection, therefore, succeeds and allowing the same we dismiss the appeal with costs. Respondents 1 :o 1 claim to have deposited the amount within the time specified by the High Court and as the appellants do not a,s indeed c0 nnot claim a .decree in their favour from this Court, it becomes unnecessary for us to specify any date for the payment of such deposit.
B
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellants had a right to appeal against the High Court decree reducing pre-emption money after the retrospective amendment of s. 31 deprived them of their right to pre-empt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Swarup v. Munshi and OthersFollowed
[1963] 3 S.C.R. 858 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Mula
Godhu
J. M. Shelat
C. A. Vaidialingam
I. D. Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
