Civil Appeal No 91 of 1971 From the Judgement and order dated 2181978 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in RSA No 378 of 1963
Civil Appeal No 639 of 1985 From the Judgment and Order dated 3121984 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in RSA No 1721 of 1976
SK Bagga for the Appellants
HK Puri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
These two appeals by special leave are directed against two different judgments of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in suits for pre emption
The facts of the two cases are different In this Appeal the alienation was on November 22 1972 by one Nathu and his wife Smt
Singari in favour of outsiders Plaintiffs claimed possession of the property by way of pre emption on the ground that they have superior rights being father s brother s sons of Nathu covered under Section 151a THIRDLY of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913
That claim was decreed so far as Nathu s half share in the property was concerned and the claim as against the alienation of half share by his wife was rejected
The alienees  appeal to the District Judge as also the High Court did not succeed
A constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Atam Parkash vs State of Haryana   has recently held There is therefore no reasonable classification and clauses First  Secondly  and Thirdly  in section 151a are therefore declared ultra vires the Constitution
 The result of this decision in Atam Parkash s case is that section 151a THIRDLY is and was not available to the plaintiffs to base their claim of pre emption upon
63985 has therefore to be allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court as upheld in the first and second appeals must be reversed
Plaintiffs  suit for pre emption has to be dismissed
Since the reversal is the outcome of a judgment delivered by this Court during the pendency of the civil appeal we direct parties to bear their respective costs throughout
91171 Sonu Ram defendant I was the owner of about 9 bighas of agricultural properties in which Bachan Singh and Niranjan Singh plaintiffs claimed to be the cultivating tenants
Sonu Ram sold the property under a registered sale deed dated July 22 1959
The tenant filed a suit on July 21 1960 for a decree for possession by preemption
With effect from February 4 1960 Section 15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913  the Act  for short was amended by Act 10 of 1960
Under the amendment inter alia a new clause was inserted in s151a namely FOURTHLY which reads as under FOURTHLY in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof The Amending Act brought in a new provision by way of Section 31 to the following effect 381 Punjab Pre emption Amendment Act 1960 to apply to all suits No Court shall pass a decree in a suit for preemption whether instituted before or after the commencement of the Punjab Pre emption Amendment Act 1960 which is inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act
 The trial Court as also the first appellate Court took the view that on the date when the sale took place the plaintiffs had no right of pre emption and as such the claim was not maintainable
Before the High Court in Second Appeal the appellants placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Amir Singh  Anr
vs Ram Singh  Ors The High Court took the view that on the date of sale the plaintiffs had no right infringed though they had such right on the date of the suit
As one of the requirements of the law was that the plaintiffs to succeed in a suit for pre emption should have a superior right of pre emption on the date of sale also the plaintiffs  claim could not be decreed
The High Court therefore upheld the decree of the courts below
We have heard learned counsel for both the sides at some length and are inclined to agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that all the three courts have gone wrong in dismissing the claim
Gajendragadkar J as he then was who spoke for the Constitution Bench in Amir Singh s case categorically held It is however urged that the law of pre emption requires that the pre emptor must possess the right to pre empt at the date of the sale at the date of the suit and at the date of the decree
This position cannot be disputed
But when it is suggested that the respondents cannot claim that they had the right when they brought the present suit or when the sales were effected the argument ignores the true effect of the retrospective operation of section 31 and section 15
If the inevitable consequence of the retrospective operation of section 31 is to make the substantive provisions of section 15 also retrospective it follows that by fiction introduced by the retrospective operation the rights which the respondents claim under the amended provisions of section 15 must be deemed to have vested in them at the relevant time
If the relevant provisions are made retrospective by the legislature the retrospective operation must be given full effect to and that 382 meets the argument that the right to pre empt did not exist in the respondents at the time when the sale transactions in question took place
Therefore we are satisfied that the respondents are entitled to claim that they should be given an opportunity to prove their case that as tenants of the lands in suit they have a right to claim pre emption
 In view of the categorical indication that section 15 was retrospective it must follow that the newly inserted clause FOURTHLY in section 151a of the Act was in existence at all relevant times
So far as facts of this case are concerned the plaintiffs must be presumed to have had a right to pre empt on the date of sale
Admittedly the suit was filed subsequent to the amendment
It is a well settled principle of law that when the legislature makes provision for a deeming situation to give effect to the mandate of the legislature all things necessary to effectuate the retrospective intention must be deemed to have existed
All the courts in our view clearly went wrong in dealing with the legal situation
The High Court erroneously distinguished the rule in Amir Singh s case even though the ratio applied in all fours
The judgments and decrees of all the three courts are set aside
The plaintiffs are found entitled to pre empt the alienee under section 151a FOURTHLY of the Act as amended by the Act of 1960
We allow the appeal reverse the decrees of all the courts below and direct that the plaintiffs  suit shall be decreed
Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their costs throughout
The trial Court is directed to give effect to the decree passed by this Court
MLA Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondents in Civil Appeal No 639 of 1985 claimed possession of the property sold by one Nathu on November 22 1972 by way of pre emption on the ground that they had superior rights being father s brother s sons of Nathu covered under Section 151a THIRDLY of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913
The claim was decreed and the alienees  appellants appeal to the District Judge as also the High Court did not succeed
Hence this appeal by Special Leave
In Civil Appeal No 911 of 1971 respondent No 1 was the owner of some agricultural property in which appellants plaintiffs claimed to be the cultivating tenants
Respondent No 1 sold the aforesaid property on July 22 1959
The appellants tenants filed a suit on July 21 1960 for a decree for possession by pre emption
The Trial Court the first appellate court as also the High Court took the view that on the date when the sale took place the appellants had no right of pre emption and as such the claims was not maintainable
Allowing the appeals  HELD In CA No 639 of 1983 1
The decree passed by the trial court as upheld in the first and second appeals must be reversed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Atam Prakash vs State of Haryana  holding clauses First Secondly and Thirdly in section 151a as ultra vires the Constitution
Therefore section 151a THIRDLY is and was not available to the respondents plaintiffs to base their claim of pre emption upon
380D 379 In CA No 911 of 1971 2
All the three Courts have gone wrong in dismissing the claim of the appellants plaintiffs
They are found entitled to pre empt the alienees under section 151a FOURTHLY of the Act as amended by Act of 1960
381E 382D E 31 It is a well settled principle of law that when the legislature makes provision for a deeming situation to give effect to the mandate of the legislature all things necessary to effect retrospective intention must be deemed to have existed
382C D 32 With effect from February 4 1960 section 15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 was amended by Act 10 of 1960
The inevitable consequence of the retrospective operation of section 31 is to make the substantive provisions of section 15 also retrospective
It follows that by the fiction introduced by retrospective operation the rigths which the appellants claimed under the amended provisions of section 15 must be deemed to have vested in them at the relevant time
Therefore the appellants must be presumed to have had a right to pre empt on the date of sale
380F G 381G 382B C Amir Singh  Anr
vs Ram Singh  Ors  referred to