http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAMJILAL & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GHISA RAM ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   649        1996 SCALE  (2)401

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted in the SLP. Substitution allowed.      These appeals  were referred to a larger Bench by order of this  Court made  on 10th  May, 1994.  The facts  in C.A. No.4017 are sufficient for disposal of these appeals.      The facts  are that  on July  16, 1979,  certain  lands situated in  Kutiyana Tehsil  & District  Sirsa were sold by Mathri, Dilawar  and Santosh  Kumar  to  the  appellants  by registered sale  deed dated  June 16,  1979. The  respondent filed Suit  No.581/80 in  the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Sirsa under  Section 15(l)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 on  July 18,  1980 for  preemption of the land from the appellants on the premise that the lands originally belonged to one  Shri Ram who died in the year 1944. His widow Dhapan had remained  in possession as Widow’s Estate. She cannot be said to have inherited the property through her husband. She had no  right to  sell the  lands to  the appellants  as she remained limited  owner. Therefore, being a co-owner of Shri Ram, the  respondent is  entitled to preemption of the lands sold by  Dhapan to the appellants. Accepting  the contention of the  respondent, the  trial Court  decreed the  suit.  On appeal, it  was confirmed. Second appeal was dismissed. Thus these appeals  by special  leave. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,  1956 enlarges  the widows’  estate known to sastric law;  removed the  fetters on possession and blossom into an  absolute right to the widow.      Pending appeals, the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 fact No.10 of 1995) came into force w.e.f July 7, 1995. The question arises: whether the respondents are entitled to pre-emption. This  controversy was  considered by this Court Karan Singh  & Ors.  v. Bhagwan Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. [C.A. @  SLP (C)  Nos.14362 & 14372 of 1986] decided on 24th January, 1996  by a  Bench of which two of us [K.Ramaswamy & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.] were members. Therein, it was held that the appeal  was continuation  of original  proceedings. When

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the appellate court has season of the whole case, the entire controversy would  be at  large and  the issue would be open for reconsideration.  Thus the  whole case  is at large. For the purpose  of pre-emption,  the right  and remedy  must be available not  only on  the date of the sale but also on the date of  the suit  as well as on the date when the decree is made and is finally to be affirmed or need to be modified at the time  of the disposal of the appeal. Since the appeal is a continuation  of the  original proceedings,  the right and the remedy  should  continue  to  subsist  till  this  Court decides the  controversy, if  the appeal is presented and is pending disposal.  Since the  statute had intervened and the Act has taken away the right of pre-emption of the co-owners and confined  the right  and remedy  to be only in favour of the tenants,  the  respondents  have  lost  their  right  of preemption. In  other words, co-owners’ right of pre-emption has   been   taken   away   by   amendment   to   the   Act. Consequentially,  the   respondents  have  lost  the  right, pending the  appeals. This  Court under  Section 57  of  the Indian Evidence  Act shall  take judicial  notice of all the laws in  force in  the territory  of India.  The Court would take judicial  notice of  the Acts  of State Legislature and the Parliament.  Accordingly, taking notice of the change in law the  right end  remedy to the respondent have been lost. As a result, the suit for pre-emption is not maintainable.      The main  appeal  as  well  as  connected  appeals  are accordingly  allowed.   Consequentially,  the   suits  stand dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.