UJAGAR SINGH Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for pre -emption. There is no dispute on facts. Mst. Malan was married to Kodu. On his death she married Bujha. Rattan is the son of Mst. Malan from Kodu. The property in dispute Mst. Malan inherited from Bujha. This property was sold by Mst. Malan by a registered deed of sale on the 14th of June, 1961 for a sum of Rs. 17,000/ - The property is agricultural land, and the sale was in favour of Ujagar Singh. Rattan Singh son of Kodu pre -empted the sale. His suit was decreed under S. 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre -emptions Act. Against this decision the present second appeal is preferred.

(2.) MR . Gupta's contention is, that it is only the son of the female from the husband whose property she has sold who is entitled to preempt it under section 15(2)(b) and not her pichhlag son. In support of this contention he relies on the observations of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mota Singh v. Prem Paxkash Kaur, I.L.R. (1961) P&H. 614, to which I was a party, Dua J, delivered the judgment and at page 629 of the report made these observations.

(3.) MR . Puran Chand learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent contends that the amendment which came during the pendency of the appeal cannot be taken into account because the amendment is not retrospective. In my view this argument has no force because the amendment is merely brought about as a matter of abundant caution and for clarifying the intention of the legislature which all along had been the same from the very inception of the introduction of section 15. The amendment does not confer a new right of pre -emption nor does it take away a right of pre -emption already existing. It merely clarifies the ambiguity in the language used by the draftsmen. Therefore, the con tension that no retrospective effect should be given to the amendment has no meaning. I would accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the same but in the circumstances of the case the parries will bear their own costs throughout.