HAIDAR HUSAIN Vs. PURAN MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption of a sale deed dated 9 November 1928. The suit was filed on the 8 of November 1929. On the 6 of February 1930, the defendants-vendees obtained a deed of gift in their favour which the present plaintiff also sought to preempt by a second suit. It has now been finally held that it was a transaction of gift and was not perceptible. On 20 December 1930, the Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim for preemption, holding that the second transaction was a sale and not a gift. But on 14 December 1931 the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the second transaction was one of gift and accordingly dismissed not only the plaintiff's claim to pre-empt the second transaction but also his claim to preempt the first sale deed. The finding that the second transaction was a gift has been upheld by the High Court in second appeal.

(2.) The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the defendants-vendees, by having taken a deed of gift on 6 February 1930, during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court, are entitled to defeat the plaintiff's claim.

(3.) The Amending Act (9 of 1929) received the assent of the Governor-General on 27 January 1930, and it was published in the Gazette on 15 February 1930. According to Section 5, U.P. General Clauses Act (1 of 1924), which applies to the Local Acts, an Act, when it is not expressed on which particular day it has to come into operation, comes into force on the day an which it is first published in the Gazette after having received the assent of the Governor-General. Accordingly the Amending Act came into force on 15 February 1930. It may be noted that there is a distinction as regards the Imperial Acts which are governed by the General Clauses Act (Imperial Act No. 10 of 1897), under Section 5 of which an Imperial Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the assent of the Governor- General.