Ramjilal & Ors. Etc. v. Ghisa Ram Etc.
In short. The case involves a dispute over the right of pre-emption concerning land sold by a widow, Dhapan, to the appellants, Ramjilal and others. The respondent, Ghisa Ram, claimed pre-emption based on his status as a co-owner of the land originally owned by his deceased relative, Shri Ram. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, but the decision was challenged in higher courts. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the respondents lost their right to pre-emption due to a legislative amendment that restricted such rights to tenants only, thereby making the suit for pre-emption unmaintainable.
Facts
- On June 16, 1979, lands in Kutiyana Tehsil, Sirsa, were sold by Dhapan (the widow of Shri Ram) to the appellants.
- The respondent filed a suit for pre-emption on July 18, 1980, claiming that Dhapan, as a limited owner, had no right to sell the land.
- The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision that was upheld on appeal and in a second appeal.
- The Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995, came into effect on July 7, 1995, which restricted the right of pre-emption to tenants only.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondent's claim to pre-emption was invalid due to the legislative changes that occurred after the sale. They contended that the right to pre-emption was no longer available to co-owners, as the amendment specifically limited this right to tenants. The court acknowledged this argument, emphasizing that the appeal was a continuation of the original proceedings and that the legal context had changed.
Respondent Arguments
The respondent maintained that he was entitled to pre-emption as a co-owner of the land, asserting that Dhapan's limited ownership did not grant her the right to sell the property. The respondent argued that the original court's decision should stand, as it was based on the law at the time of the sale. However, the court found that the legislative amendment had effectively nullified the respondent's claim, as it restricted pre-emption rights.
Precedents considered
The court referenced the case of Karan Singh & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., which established that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. This precedent was crucial in determining that the right to pre-emption must be assessed based on the law in effect at the time of the appeal, not just at the time of the sale.
Legal principles
The court considered the principle that the right to pre-emption must exist at the time of the sale, the filing of the suit, and the final decision on appeal. The amendment to the Haryana Pre-emption Act, which limited pre-emption rights to tenants, was a significant factor in the court's decision.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that since the legislative amendment had taken effect during the pendency of the appeals, the respondents could no longer claim the right to pre-emption. The court emphasized the importance of judicial notice of legislative changes and concluded that the respondents had lost their right to pre-emption, rendering the suit unmaintainable.
Outcome
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that the respondents had lost their right to pre-emption due to the amendment to the Haryana Pre-emption Act. The court dismissed the appeals and ordered that the suit for pre-emption was not maintainable.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the impact of legislative changes on ongoing legal proceedings and the necessity for courts to consider current laws when adjudicating cases. It highlights the principle that rights and remedies must be available at all relevant stages of a legal process, and it clarifies the limitations imposed by the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.