Appeal No 1156 of 1967
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 6 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Regular First Appeal No 152 of 1958
Brij Bans Kishore Mahabir Prasad Jain and JP Gupta  for the appellants
VC Mahajan and MS Gupta for respondent Nos 1 and 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua J
This appeal on certificate has been preferred by one set of pre emptors plaintiffs in suit No 556 of 1958 against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing the rival plaintiffs pre emptors  appeal by reducing the pre emption money and passing a decree of pre emption on payment of Rs 105800 instead of Rs 135000 as directed by the trial Court
On behalf of the rival pre emptors plaintiffs in suit No 558 of 1958 who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in this Court a preliminary objection was taken to the competency of the present appeal
The appellants  right to appeal was challenged on the ground that the amendment of the Punjab Pre emption Act hereinafter called the Act by the Punjab Act X of 1960 had deprived them of their right of pre emption with retrospective effect
The appellants had based their right of pre emption in their suit on the ground of their being proprietors of the village
They were deprived of this right by the Amending Act of 1960 and section 31 of 131 the Act as amended made the amendment retrospective in its operation by prohibiting the Courts from passing decrees inconsistent with the Amended Act
The right of respondents 1 to 3 who had sued as sons of the vendors remained undisturbed by the amendment
It was on this basis that the preliminary objection was pressed before us
The facts relevant for the present appeal may now briefly be stated
The land in suit was sold by a registered sale deed on June 18 1957 by Kashi Harchand and Bhagoo respondents 4 to 6 in this Court to respondents 7 to 18 for an ostensible consideration of Rs 135000 
The appellants and respondents 1 to 3 instituted two separate suits for pre emption in respect of this sale
In both the suits the sale price as inserted in the sale deed was questioned
The two suits were consolidated and the plaintiffs in each suit were joined as defendants in the other suit as contemplated by section 28 of the Act
It appears that on April 28 1958 a statement was made on behalf of the vendees admitting the right of the pre emptors in both the suits and conceding that a decree be passed in favour of respondents 1 to 3 in the first instance and on their failure to pay the amount the appellants be held entitled to a decree on payment of Rs 135000 
Apparently all other objections raised by the vendees to the right of the pre emptors were dropped
Counsel for the appellants also made a statement expressing his willingness to pay a sum of Rs 135000 
Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 however did not accept the amount of consideration as entered in the sale deed and wanted the issue in regard to the pre emption money to be decided on the merits
The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated June 30 1958 granted to the plaintiffs in both the suits a decree in the following terms It is ordered that a decree is granted to the plaintiffs for possession of land in suit by pre emption on payment of Rs 135000 on the condition that the plaintiffs deposit this amount in the court for payment to the vendees defendants within one month on or before 30th July 1958 otherwise this suit shall stand dismissed
In case of default by the plaintiffs Godhu etc
Moola and other rival pre emptors who are plaintiffs in suit No 556 of 1958 shall be entitled to deposit the above amount as pre emption money on or before 30th October 1958 and get the possession of the land in suit
 This decree was apparently framed in the light of the provisions of section 28 of the Act and Order 20  r 14 CPC Section 28 which provides for concurrent hearing of two or more suits for pre empting the same sale lays down that each decree shall state the order in which each claimant is entitled to exercise his right of pre emption
Order 20 r 14 1 a lays down that the decree 132 in a pre emption suit shall when purchase money has not been paid in the Court specify a day on or before which the same shall be paid and Order 20 r 142b provides inter alia that in so far as the claims decreed are different in degree the claim of the inferior pre emptor shall not take effect unless and until the superior pre emptor has failed to comply with the provisions of sub rule 1
Respondents 1 to 3 feeling dissatisfied with the decision on the amount of deposit to be made preferred an appeal to the Punjab High Court
On January 6 1967 the High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of deposit to Rs 105800 
While framing the decree the High Court allowed the plaintiffs pre emptors a period of three months from January 6 1967 for depositing in Court the amount of Rs 105800 failing which their suit was directed to stand dismissed
Nothing was stated in the decree as regards the claim of the appellants
Attention of the High Court apparently does not seem to have been drawn to the provisions either of section 28 of the Act or of Order 20 r 14 Civil PC or of para 3 of Chapter 1 Mc at page 59 of Volume 1 of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders
Para 3 aforesaid emphasises the importance of specifying a definite date for the deposit of money in Court
It may at this stage appropriately be observed that the omission to state in the decree the order in which the two rival claimants were entitled to exercise their right of pre emption might have been due either to the fact that the appellants who were impleaded as respondents in the High Court in view of section 31 as interpreted in Ram Swarup vs Munshi and Others1 did not press their claim and did not ask for the inclusion of a direction regarding their right in the High Court decree or to the fact that they may have felt that having expressed their willingness in the trial Court to deposit Rs 135000 it was no longer open to them to question this valuation
It is also not unlikely that in view of the decision in Ram Swarup s case1 the High Court thought that the only right of pre emption subsisting on January 6 1967 was that of respondents 1 to 3 and that there was therefore no occasion for making any consequential order in faxour of the appellants under Order 41 r 33 Civil PC
The judgment of the High Court does not contain any discussion on the point as to why no reference was made to the appellants  claims
It would certainly have been more helpful if the High Court had stated something in its judgment on this aspect
In the circumstances of this case however we need say nothing more on this point
It is against the decree of the High Court reducing the amount of deposit to be made by respondents 1 to 3 that the appellants 1   133 pre emptors have come to this Court on appeal and their right to appeal is challenged on the ground that the existing law of preemption has retrospectively deprived them of their right to preempt by prohibiting the courts from passing a decree for pre emption inconsistent with the Act as amended
The challenge seems to be well founded
This Court had in Ram Swarup s case1 occasion to construe the effect of section 31 of the Act
According to that decision section 31 is plain and comprehensive enough to require an appellate court to give effect to the substantive provisions of the Amending Act whether the appeal before it is one against a decree granting pre emption or one refusing that relief
Following the ratio of this decision it must be held that it is not open to this Court to pass a decree of pre emption in favour of the appellants who were deprived in 1960 of their right to secure such a decree in the present suit
Indeed it was not open even to the High Court to pass a decree of pre emption in favour of the appellants on January 6 1967 and the decree of that court is unexceptionable in this respect
The argument that the appellants
had already cured a decree in their favour by the trial Court which decree has become final and that they have fully complied with its terms and further that in the present appeal they are merely seeking modification of the decree of the High Court in favour of respondents 1 to 3 by getting the amount of pre emption money enhanced to Rs 135000  without claiming any right of pre emption in their own favour is unsustainable
This argument ignores that the scheme of section 28 of the Act read with Order 20 r 14 Civil PC does not postulate decrees of pre emption in favour of rival pre emptors on payment of different amounts of purchase money in respect of the same sale
Such a course may lead to conflicting decisions on the question of value of the property sought to be pre empted for the purposes of pre emption suit
Besides the appellants  right to pre empt the sale under the unamended law was admittedly inferior to that of respondents 1 to 3 and the appellants could only be held entitled to exercise their right after the failure of the said respondents to comply with the terms of the decree in their favour
The right of respondents 1 to 3 was determined by the High Court and it was claimed on their behalf at  the Bar of this Court that they had already deposited the preemption money as required by the High Court decree
Indeed this assertion was not disputed on behalf of the appellants
We are accordingly unable to hold that the appellants have successfully executed the decree of pre emption in their favour
The appellants further developed their argument by submitting that the decree passed by the trial Court in their favour was 1 134 never appealed against and that the same has become final and binding on all parties
The only appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3 according to this submission was from the decree in their own suit with the result that the decree in favour of the appellants passed by the trial Court in their suit has by now become conclusive and unassailable
We cannot accept this submission
There is nothing on the record to show that the appeal presented in the High Court by respondents 1 to 3 was directed against the decree passed in their suit
Apparently the appeal was filed against the decree passed in the consolidated suits dealing with the rights of both the rival pre emptors and all the parties interested in the right of pre emption were impleaded in the appeal
Besides this contention seems to us to be only another way of putting the same argument namely that there can be two or more different determinations of the amount of pre emption money in the two consolidated suits for pre empting the sale in question
It also postulates a claim by an inferior pre emptor to pre empt the sale by making the deposit of the pre emption money before the superior pre emptor has failed to comply with the terms of the decree in his favour
This argument as the foregoing discussion shows is without merit
In the present case a further question arises as to whether or not it was open to the appellants to ask the High Court not to vary the determination of pre emption money in the appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3 without formally preferring a separate appeal from the other decree considered to have been passed in the other suit because passing of such an inconsistent decree on appeal on the question of valuation would not be permissible in law
No argument on these lines was addressed in the High Court
The effect of this omission has not been canvassed in this Court either
We would therefore express no opinion on this aspect
The final decree relating to the rival claims of pre emption in respect of the sale in question however seems to be that of the High Court which may well be considered to be binding on all the parties to it
And then if the appellants  claim that the decree passed in their favour by the trial Court in their suit has already become final and their right is unaffected by the decree of the High Court then they cannot be considered to be aggrieved by the impugned decree and therefore they cannot claim any locus standi to appeal against it
From whichever point of view one looks at the position the appellants cannot claim a right of appeal from the decree of the High Court determining the pre emption money to be Rs 1 05800 The right to appeal against that decree can only be exercised by a person whose claim of pre emption in respect of the sale in question can be considered to have been adversely affected by it
The appellants on their own argument possess no such right
135 The preliminary objection therefore succeeds and allowing the same we dismiss the appeal with costs
Respondents 1 t0 3 claim to have deposited the amount within the time specified by the High Court and as the appellants do not as indeed cannot claim a decree in their favour from this Court it becomes unnecessary for us to specify any date for the payment of such deposit
RKPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
After the land in suit was sold in June 1957 for an ostensible sum of Rs 135000  the appellants and respondents 1 to 3 instituted two separate suits for pre emptions in which the sale price inserted in the sale deed was also questioned
The two suits were consolidated and the plaintiffs in each suit were joined as defendants in the other suit under section 38 of Punjab Pre emption Act 1913
The vendees thereafter admitted the rights of preemptors in both the suits conceding that a decree may be passed in their favour
The appellants accepted the sale price of Rs 135000 on or before 30th July 1958 and although respondents 1 to 3 wanted this issue to be decided on the merits the trial court passed a decree in both the suits granting respondents 1 to 3 the right to preemption in the first instance on payment of Rs 135000 and on their failure to so pay holding the appellants entitled to exercise the right to pre emption on payment of the said amount on or before 30th October 1958
In an appeal to the High Court respondents 1 to 3 challenged the correctness of the amount of the deposit to be made
Allowing the appeal the High Court reduced the amount of deposit to Rs 105800 and directed respondents 1 to 3 to deposit the amount within three months
In an appeal by the appellants to this Court against the decision of the High Court a preliminary objection was taken challenging the appelants right to appeal it was contended that the appellants had based their right to pre emption in their suit on the ground of their being proprietors of the village where the land was situated
They were deprived of that right by the amendment of section 31 of the Punjab Pre emption Act by Punjab Act 10 of 1969 which amendment was retrospective in its operation and prohibited the Courts from passing any decree inconsistent with the amended Act
On the other hand it was contended inter alia for the appellants that they had already secured a decree in their favour by the trial court which had become final and with the terms of which the had complied in the present appeal they were merely seeking modification of the decree of the High Court in favour of respondents 1 to 3 by getting the amount of pre emption money enhanced t0 Rs 135000 without claiming any rights of pre emption in their own favour furthermore the only appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3 to the High Court was from the decree in heir own suit and for this reason also the decree in favour of the appellants by the trial court had become conclusive and unassailable
130 HELD Upholding the preliminary objection It was not open to this Court to pass a decree of pre emption in favour of the appellants who were deprived by the Amendment Act of 1960 of their right to secure such a decree
133 C D The contention that the decree in the appellants  suit had become final and the High Court s order was only in relation to the suit of respondents 1 to 3 ignored the scheme of section 28 of the Act read with O20 r 14 CPC which does not postulate decrees of pre emption in favour of rival preemptors on payment of different amounts of purchase money in respect of the same sale
Such a course may lead to conflicting decisions on the question of value of the property sought to be pre empted for the purposes of a pre emption suit
Besides the appellants  right to pre empted the sale under the unamended law was admittedly inferior to that of respondents 1 to 3 and the appellants could only be held entitled to exercise their right after the failure of those respondents to comply with the terms of the decree in their favour
133 E G Ram Swarup vs Munshi and Others   referred to