A It is not in controversy that the Kayal lands which are the subject matter of these appeals are of the category mentioned in clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 81. They were therefore exempt from the restriction on ownership prescribed by the various sections of Chapter III referred to above. So even though by virtue of section 84 of the Act all voluntary transfers effected after September 15, 1963 (date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 in the B Gazette) were invalid, the transfers made in respect of Kayal padasakharams in appeals Nos. 907-909 could not be held to be invalid for the simple reason that they were exempt from the provisions of Chapter III. That exemption was no doubt withdrawn by section 65 of Act 35 of 1969 which amended the Act, but it is not disputed before us that the section was not brought into force until January 1, 1970. The voluntary transfers made between September 15, 1963 c and January l, 1970 were therefore valid, and there is no force in the argument of the Advocate General that the amendment brought about by section 65 of Act 35 of 1969 should be given retrospective effect from April 1, 1964 as sections 82 and 84 of the Act were 9rought into force from that date. There is also no force in the other argument of the Advocate General that section 84 had the D effect of invalidating the transfers effected after September 15, 1963 for that was the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill in the 'gazette. The argument overlooks the fact that, as has been mentioned, Kaya! lands were exempt from the provisions of Chapter III until as late as January l, 1970. In this view of the matter Pritam Singh Chahil v. State of Punjab and others(!) cannot avail the appellants. The amendment cannot also be said to be curative or E merely declaratory of the previous law. The facts of Chanan Singh and another v. Jai Kaur,(2 ) cited by the Advocate General, were quite different inasmuch as in the appeals before us the amendment which was made by section 65 of Act 35 of 1969 was neither curative nor merely declaratory. As has been stated, it, inter alia, omitted, clause (1) of section 81 of the Act which exempted the Kayal padasakharams which are the subject matter of the present F controversy from the application of the provisions of Chapter III of the Act. It is well settled that a 'statute is not to be read retrospectively except of necessity. There is no such necessity in the cases before us, for the Legislature decided to exempt the 'aforesaid Kayal lands from the operation of the restrictions and even though amending Act 35 of 1969 was promulgated · on December 17, 1969, section 65 thereof, which withdrew the exemption, was not brought G into force until January 1. 1970.
