BACHAN SINGH & ANR. ETC. versus CHHOTU RAM & ORS. ETC

Section 15(1)(a) THIRDLY could not sustain a pre-emption claim after being declared ultra vires, but the 1960 amendment introducing FOURTHLY, when read with retrospective effect conferred by Section 31, vested pre-emption rights in cultivating tenants as at the date of sale.

Parties: Appellant: Bachan Singh; Appellant: Niranjan Singh; Respondent: Chhotu Ram; Respondent: Sonu Ram
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 23 July 1986
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome: Appeals allowed; lower courts' decrees reversed where necessary.
Legal Topics: Pre Emption, Retrospective Operation of Amendments

Property Law Civil Law Pre Emption Retrospective Operation of Amendments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Bachan Singh

Appellant

Niranjan Singh

Appellant

Chhotu Ram

Respondent

Sonu Ram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether plaintiffs could claim pre-emption under Section 15(1)(a) THIRDLY of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, after its declaration as ultra vires
2 Whether cultivating tenants had acquired a right to pre-empt under Section 15(1)(a) FOURTHLY of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as amended in 1960, despite the sale occurring before the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; lower courts' decrees reversed where necessary.

Orders

Plaintiffs' suit for pre-emption in C.A. 639/85 dismissed.
Plaintiffs' suit for pre-emption in C.A. 911/71 decreed; trial court to give effect to this decree.