Holding

Decrees that became final before the Atam Prakash judgment are binding inter‑parties, and the prospective amendment of Section 15 does not affect the earlier decree.

Summary

The land in dispute was transferred to the appellant in 1980, after which the respondent filed a suit for pre-emption that was decreed on 27 August 1983. The decree was affirmed by the court of appeal and a second appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 5 April 1984, making the decree final. When the respondent sought execution of the decree in 1984, the executing court refused on the ground that only a share of the land had been transferred, leading the respondent to file a civil revision which the High Court allowed on 20 March 1990, holding the decree binding despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Atam Prakash that declared the Punjab Pre-emption Act unconstitutional. The appellants contended that the Atam Prakash judgment rendered the decree a nullity and that the 1995 amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act extinguished any pre-emption right. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, observing that decrees which had become final before the Atam Prakash decision remain binding inter‑parties and that the amendment is prospective, not affecting the earlier decree. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appellants’ appeals.

Issues considered

Whether a decree for pre-emption that became final before the Supreme Court’s declaration of unconstitutionality of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is binding inter‑parties.
Whether the 1995 amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, being prospective, affects the enforceability of the earlier decree.

Legislation cited

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913s. 15

Subjects

pre-emptiondecree finalityconstitutional validityprospective amendmentexecution of decreePunjab Pre-emption ActSupreme Court precedentcivil revision

Judgment

SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR. A-
v.
HUKUM CHAND

AUGUST 22, 1996

[N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B

Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913:

'..:i
.
Pre-emption-Land transferred in favour of appellant-Suit filed by
respondent for Pre-emption decreed on 27.8.1983-Decree affinned by Court c
of Appeal on 30.11.1983-Second appeal filed before High Court dismissed
on 5.4.1984--Decree attaining finality-Proceedings for execution of decree by
respondent-Objection taken by appellant that as only share in the land in
question had been transferred the decree passed for pre- emption cannot be
executed-Objection allowed by Executing Court-Revision preferred by
respondent before High Court-Objection by appellant that as the relevant D
provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 had been declared to be
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Atam Prakash's case the decree
passed shall be deemed to be nullity-High Court holding that notwithstand-
ing the judgment in the case of Atam Prakash the decree in the suit for
pre-emption filed on behalf of the respondent was binding between the E
parties-Appeal-Held conclusion reached by High Court was correct-When
the High Court allowed the civil revision filed on behalf of the respondent on
20.3.1990 the decrees of the trial Court, the court of appeal and the High Court
in second appeal had become final-As such the direction of this Court in
Atam Prakash's Case that such decrees shall be binding inter-parties not-
withstanding the declaration of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, was fully
F
· applicable in the present case.

Section 15 (As notified on May 7, 1995) Held prospective in operation.
-~

~. Atma Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 249, applied.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8755-56
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.90 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.R. Nos. 2552 and 2553of1988. H
69
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Mela Ram Sharma K. B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the
Appellants.

Prem Malhotra for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
These appeals have been filed, for setting aside the order dated
March 20, 1990, passed by the High Court allowing the civil revision
application which had been filed on behalf of the respondent - decree
holder. •

c There is no dispute that the land in question was transferred in
favour of the appellant No. 1 by one Kishan Chand and Jagdish Chand in
the year 1980. Thereafter a suit for pre-emption was filed on behalf of the
respondent. That suit was decreed on 27.8.1983. The appeal filed on behalf
of the appellants was dismissed by the court of appeal on 30.11.1983.
D Second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants was also dismissed by the
High Court on 5.4.1984. Thereafter, the decree holder - respondent took
steps for execution of the decree for pre-emption of the lands in question
in the year 1984. An objection was taken before the executing court that
as only share in the land in question had been transferred the decree
E passed for pre-emption cannot be executed. That objection found favour
with the executing court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the
executing court the respondent filed civil revision before the High Court
which was allowed by the impugned order. The High Court after referring
to the earlier judgments of the said court including the Full Bench judg-
ment observed :
F
"The proposition laid down in the Full Bench judgment,
referred to above, has no applicability to the facts of the present
case. In that case the question was as to whether the sale was of
specific khasra No. out of the joint land. The question of getting
the physical possession of the specific khasra nos. out of the joint
G holding is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, which provides as to how the decree for immovable property
is to be executed. Admittedly, the decree is for specific khasra nos.
which were sold to· the vendee by the vendor. That being so, the
decree-holder is entitled to the physical possession of the specific
H khasra nos. though it may be open to the judgment-debtors to make
SHANTI DEVI v. HUKUM CHAND 71

adjustments at the time of partition, if any." A
Faced with this situation aforesaid, on behalf of the appellants it was
submitted before the High Court that as the relevant provisions of the
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 had been declared to be unconstitutional by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Atam Prakash v. State
of Haryana & Ors., reported in [1986] 2 SCC 249, the decree passed in the B
suit for pre-emption filed on behalf of the respondent shall be deemed to
be nullity and as such decree cannot be executed. The High Court rejected
the said objection. This Court in the case of Atam Prakash v. State of
Haryana & Ors., has specifically said in respect of decrees which had

'
7
become final as follows : c
"We are told that in some cases suits are pending in various Courts
and, where decrees have been passed, appeals are pending in ·
appellate Courts. Such suits and appeals will now be disposed of
in accordance with the declaration granted by us. We are told that
there are few cases where suits have been decreed and the decrees D
have become final, no appeals having been filed against those
decrees. 17te decrees will be binding inter- plllties and the declaration
granted by us will be of no avail to the palties thereto." (emphasis
supplied)
E
It is, therefore, apparent that where the suits have been decreed and such
decrees have become final since no appeals have been filed against the
same, the said decrees are binding inter-parties and the declaration made
by the Supreme Court is of no avail to the parties thereto.

In the present case as mentioned above the suit for pre-emption was F
decreed on 27.8.1983. That decree was affirmed by the court of appeal on
30.11.1983. The second appeal filed before the High Court against_ the
judgment and decree of the trial court and the court of appeal was
dismissed on 5.4.1984. It is admitted position that at no stage the appellants
questioned the validity of the decree in question before this Court. We are
informed that after 12 years in the year l996, a Special Leave PP.titian has G
been filed against order dated 5.4.1984 passed in the second ap~Ja; by the
High Court. However, the fact remains that when the High Court allowed
the civil revision filed on behalf of the respondent on 20.3.1990 the decrees
of the trial court, the court of appeal and the High Court in second appeal
had become final. As such the direction of this Court in Atam Prakash's H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A case supra that such decrees shall be binding inter-parties notwithstanding
the declaration of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, was fully applicable
in the present case. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that
notwithstanding the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of
Atam Prakash (supra) the decree in the suit for pre-emption filed on behalf
pf the respondent was binding between the parties.
B
On behalf of the appellants our attention was drawn to the sub-
stituted Section 15 in the P'.lnjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 which has been
notified on 7th May, 1995 and it was urged that after the said amendment
no right of pre-emption can be enforce. Section 15 which has been sub-
C stituted is as follows :

"15. Right of pre-emption to vest in tenant :

The right of Pre-emption in respect of sale of agricultural land and
village immovable property shall vest in the tenant who holds under
D tenancy of the vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof."

On a plain reading the aforesaid section has been introduced
prospectively and there is no question of the said section affecting in any
manner the judgment and 'decree passed in the suit for pre-emption as
early as in the year 1983 affirmed by the High Court in the second appeal
E in the year 1984.

According to us the impugned order passed by the High Court is in
terms of the direction given by this Court in the judgment of the Constitu-
tion Bench inAtam Prakash case (supra) and we find no reason to take a
contrary view. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
F
T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.

I