1987 JTR(SC) 390
1987 2 JT 234
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Sen : V.B.Eradi
Bara Singh
Versus
Kashmira Singh
Case No. : 1934 of 1972
Date of Decision : 4/1/87
Advocates Appeared: Moolchandani Madhu : Singh Harbans
Act Referred :PUNJAB CUSTOM POWER TO CONTEST AMENDMENT ACT : S.1(2), S.3, S.7
Constitution of India,1950 - Sections (2), 3 and 7 - Immovable property - Express provisions - Whether ancestral or non-ancestral affects substantive rights of the parties - Court attention is drawn to view taken by this court in (Civil Appeal of 1973 to effect that Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act 1973 is retrospective in operation and that it also applies to pending proceedings - Court find that view appears to run counter to express provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.I of Amendment Act which provides that amendment shall be deemed to have come into force only – Held, When Legislature has clearly indicated that Amendment Act shall be prospective in operation it follow that S.7 as amended cannot apply to pending proceedings instituted much earlier. We therefore feel that view expressed requires reconsideration – Order accordingly
Constitution of India,1950 - Sections (2), 3 and 7 - Immovable property - Express provisions - Whether ancestral or non-ancestral affects substantive rights of the parties - Court attention is drawn to view taken by this court in (Civil Appeal of 1973 to effect that Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act 1973 is retrospective in operation and that it also applies to pending proceedings - Court find that view appears to run counter to express provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.I of Amendment Act which provides that amendment shall be deemed to have come into force only – Held, When Legislature has clearly indicated that Amendment Act shall be prospective in operation it follow that S.7 as amended cannot apply to pending proceedings instituted much earlier. We therefore feel that view expressed requires reconsideration – Order accordingly
HARBANS SINGH, MADHU MULCHANDANI
(1) OUR attention is drawn to the view taken by this court in UJJAGAR SINGH V. DHARAM SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 1973, decided on 28/11/1986) to the effect that the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973 is retrospective in operation and that it also applies to pending proceedings. We find that the view appears to run counter to the express provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.I of the Amendment Act which provides that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force only on 3/01/1973. It cannot be disputed that s.3 of the Amendment Act which makes s.7 of the Act applicable to all immovable property i.e. whether ancestral or non-ancestral affects substantive rights of the parties. When the Legislature has clearly indicated that the Amendment Act shall be prospective in operation, it follow that s.7, as amended, cannot apply to pending proceedings instituted much earlier. We therefore feel that the view expressed in UJAGGAR SINGH V. DHARAM SINGH & ORS. requires reconsideration.
(2) LET the papers be placed before Honble the chief justice of India for the case being placed before a bench of three Judges.