# SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] RAM SARUP v. MUNSHI AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1963 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1961 - **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. c. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR Bnd J, R. Mudholkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-reports-1963-ram-sarup-v-munshi-and-others-2684 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote Pre-emption-Constitutional validity of enactment-Amending legislaiion providing tha.t no decree should be passsd for pre·emption in certain cases-Retrospective operation of pending a7,peal-Punjob Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab 17 of 1887), s.3-Punjob Pre·trr·plicn Act, 1913(Funjab1af1913), as amended by Fur.jab Act 10 of 1960, "· 3(a),3(4),3(6),6,U, 16, 23, ill-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)(/),19(6). Appeal-Abatement-Decree for pr.-emption against vendees -Appeal by vendees-Deal h of one app•llant pending appealLegal re'/)1'ee~ntatives not brought on record-Maintainability of appeal. The owner of certain agricultural land in Punjab sold .__ it to the second respondent by a deed dated December 12, 1957. The son of the vendor claimed that he .had a right of preemption and instituted a suit against the appellant who purchased the land from the first respondent, and relied upon the provisions in s.15 (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The appellant pleaded (1) that the right of Pre-emption conferred bys. 15(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, had ceased to be enforceable on the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, by the Adaptation of Laws (Third Amendment) Order, 1951, in view of ss. 3(a),3(4), 6,14,23 of the Pre-emption Act of 1913, and (2) that, in any case, s. 15(a) >- of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, was repugnant to Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. Held, that (I) the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, had no effect on the continued operation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, and that the expression "agricultural land" in the later Act had to be read o.s if the "'-' definition of the Alienation of Land Act had been bodily\ __ tran1posed into it. - Clark v. Bradlaugh,(1881)8 Q.B.D. 63, relied on. ... ~l s.c.k. SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS 859 (2) the effect of the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act,1900, was that the restrictions imposed by ss.14 and 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, would disappear, leaving the court with an unfettered power to grant decrees te those who satisfied the terms or s.15. ( 3) the restriction on the right of free alienation imposed by s. 15(a)being intended (i) to preserve the integrity of the village and the village community, and (ii) to implement the agnatic rule of succession, are reasonable and culculated to further the interest of the general public. The provisions contained in s. 15(a) as it originally stood as well as in the modified form after the amendment effected by Act 10 of 1960 do not transgress the limits of reasonableness required by Art. 19(5) of the Constitution and are valid. Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath, (1962) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 734 and Uttam Singh v. Ka1tar Singh & Others, A.I.R. 1954 Punjab 55, relied on. In Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1961, the sale which give rise to the suit was under a deed dated December 29, 1949, in favour of the appellant and the first respondent's claim to pre-empt was based on s. 15(c)"thirdly" of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913. The suit was decreed by the trial court on November 8,1951 and when the matter was und~r appeal in which the question of the constitutional validity of s.15(c) "thirdly" was raised, the Act was amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960, by which, inter alia, ( 1 )s.15 of the original Act was repealed and in its place was substituted a new provision which omitted to confer a right of pre-emption in the case of persons "owning land in the estate" as the original s. 15(c) thirdly" had done, and(2) retrospective effect was given to the provisions contained in the Amending Act by the insertion of a new s. 31, which provided that "no court shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption 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." Held, ( 1) the restriction on the right of a vendor in ca11es arising out of s.19 (c)"thirdly" of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, was a reas ## Text _Characters 0–39,967 of 48,606. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39967 for what follows._ .AuzwllO. 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] RAM SARUP v. MUNSHI AND OTHERS (And Conneoted Appeals) (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR Bnd J, R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Pre-emption-Constitutional validity of enactment-Amending legislaiion providing tha.t no decree should be passsd for pre·emption in certain cases-Retrospective operation of pending a7,peal-Punjob Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab 17 of 1887), s.3-Punjob Pre·trr·plicn Act, 1913(Funjab1af1913), as amended by Fur.jab Act 10 of 1960, "· 3(a),3(4),3(6),6,U, 16, 23, ill-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)(/),19(6). Appeal-Abatement-Decree for pr.-emption against vendees -Appeal by vendees-Deal h of one app•llant pending appealLegal re'/)1'ee~ntatives not brought on record-Maintainability of appeal. The owner of certain agricultural land in Punjab sold .__ it to the second respondent by a deed dated December 12, 1957. The son of the vendor claimed that he .had a right of preemption and instituted a suit against the appellant who purchased the land from the first respondent, and relied upon the provisions in s.15 (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The appellant pleaded (1) that the right of Pre-emption conferred bys. 15(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, had ceased to be enforceable on the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, by the Adaptation of Laws (Third Amendment) Order, 1951, in view of ss. 3(a),3(4), 6,14,23 of the Pre-emption Act of 1913, and (2) that, in any case, s. 15(a) >- of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, was repugnant to Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. Held, that (I) the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, had no effect on the continued operation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, and that the expression "agricultural land" in the later Act had to be read o.s if the "'-' definition of the Alienation of Land Act had been bodily\ __ tran1posed into it. - Clark v. Bradlaugh,(1881)8 Q.B.D. 63, relied on. ... ~l s.c.k. SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS 859 (2) the effect of the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act,1900, was that the restrictions imposed by ss.14 and 23 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, would disappear, leaving the court with an unfettered power to grant decrees te those who satisfied the terms or s.15. ( 3) the restriction on the right of free alienation imposed by s. 15(a)being intended (i) to preserve the integrity of the village and the village community, and (ii) to implement the agnatic rule of succession, are reasonable and culculated to further the interest of the general public. The provisions contained in s. 15(a) as it originally stood as well as in the modified form after the amendment effected by Act 10 of 1960 do not transgress the limits of reasonableness required by Art. 19(5) of the Constitution and are valid. Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath, (1962) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 734 and Uttam Singh v. Ka1tar Singh & Others, A.I.R. 1954 Punjab 55, relied on. In Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1961, the sale which give rise to the suit was under a deed dated December 29, 1949, in favour of the appellant and the first respondent's claim to pre-empt was based on s. 15(c)"thirdly" of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913. The suit was decreed by the trial court on November 8,1951 and when the matter was und~r appeal in which the question of the constitutional validity of s.15(c) "thirdly" was raised, the Act was amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960, by which, inter alia, ( 1 )s.15 of the original Act was repealed and in its place was substituted a new provision which omitted to confer a right of pre-emption in the case of persons "owning land in the estate" as the original s. 15(c) thirdly" had done, and(2) retrospective effect was given to the provisions contained in the Amending Act by the insertion of a new s. 31, which provided that "no court shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption 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." Held, ( 1) the restriction on the right of a vendor in ca11es arising out of s.19 (c)"thirdly" of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, was a reasonable one and that the provisions in the section were not repugnant to Art. 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath & Others. ( 1962) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 724 followed. /lif!lt S.EME COURT :tiEPOR'.i:'S (i963] (2) the language used in s.31 was comprehensive enough so as to require an appellate court to give effect to the subs· tantive provision) of the amending Act whether the appeal before it was one against a decree gr inting pre·emption or one refusing that relief. Conseque:ntly, in view of s. 31, the decree for pre-emption passed by the trial court could not be sustained. Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, [1940) F.C.R. 84, relied on. Ram Lal v. Raja Ram, (1960) 62 P.L.R. 291 approved. In Civil Appeal No. 214 of 1961, the properties in respect of which respondents 1 to 4 had instituted a suit claiming a right of pre-emption had been sold to the appel· lants by a deed dated April 25, 1957, for a consideration o{ Rs. 22,750, out of which appellants 1 and 2 had paid one half amounting to Rs. 11,375, while the other three appellants had paid the other half. The recitals showed that it was not a case of sale of separated items of the properties in favour of the two sets of the vendees but that they were to be enjoyed by them in equal shares. A decree for pre·emption was passed against the vendees who took the matter on appeal. While the appeal was pendh,g the first appellant died but no application was made to bring on record his legal representatives. Held, that the appeal must be dismissed as having abated on the death of the first appellant without legal repre· sentatives being brought on record. Where a decree is a joint one and a part of the decree has become final by reason of abatement, the entire appeal must be held to be abated. CIVIL APPELLA'l'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 139, 147, 214 and 510 of 1961. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decrees dated October 8, 21,28. 1959, and March 4, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in R. S. A. No. 473 of 1959, L.P.A. No. 332 of 1959, R.S.A. Nos, 921 of \ • -.,. • .. 1959 and 508 of 195:.\ .,_ '-- J.P. Goyal, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 139 of 1962). · a s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 861 Nanak Ohand, for respondent No. 1. (in C. A, No. 139 of 1962). Hardyal Hardy and N. N. Keswani, for the appellants (in C. A. No. 147 of 1961). Dayal Swarup Nehra and K. R. Ohoudh""ri, for respondent No. 1 (in C. A. No. 147of1961). Hardev Singh and Y. Kumar, for appellants Nos. 2 to 5 (in C. A, No. 214 of 1961). K, L. Gosain and M. L. Aggrawala, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (in C. A. No. 214 of 1961), P. S. Safeer, for the appellant {in C. A. No. 510 of 1961). A.ohhru Ram and B. D. Jain, for the reapondent (in C. A. No. 510of196l). 1962. August 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYY.ANG.AR, J.~ These four appeals which have been filed pursuant to special leave granted by this Court principally raise for consideration the c0nstitutional validity of s. 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (Act I of 1913), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The property involved in these appeals are agricultural lands and in each one of them decrees have been passed in favour of the pre-emptors whose claim to pre-empt was based on different sub-clauses of s. 15, and the vendees who are the appellants in the several appeals challenge the constitutional validity of the law under which • the suits have been decreed. One of the appeiils-Civil Appeal No. 214 of 1961 however could be decided without conaidering the constitutional point regarding the validity ll6S RarnSarup v. Munshi 1961 Ram Sarup •. ' Munahi 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] of B. 15 of the Act and it would therefore be con· venient to dispose it of first. The facts giving rise to the appeal are briefly ae follows: The 5th and 6th respondents before us owned certain agricultural land in village Dugri which they sold to the appellants by a deed dated April 25, 1957. Respondents 1 to 4 instituted a. suit against the appellants to which the vendors-respondents 5 & 6 were also impleaded as co-defendants. The right of preemption was based on the plaintiffs being the nearest collaterals of the vendors and heirs according to the rule of succession. There were certain points of dispute on the facts but these are not now material and it is sufficient to state that the suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge on December 10, 1958. This judgment in favour of reRpondenta I to 4 was affirmed by the District Judge on appeal and on further appeal, by the High Court. It is from this judgment and decree of the High Court that the vendees who are the appellants before us have brought the matter to this Court. '• The appellants were five in number. They '-, fell into two groups constituted respectively by the 1st and 2nd appellants who are brothers and by appellants 3, 4 and 5. While the appeal was pending in this Court the lstappellant-Mehar Singh died on May 18, 1960, leaving a widow and five children- four daughters and a son, as his heirs. No application was, however, made to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased lst appellant- Mehar Singh and learned Counsel appearing for the other four appellants informed the office that the legal representatives were not being brought on reoord and tha.t he would proceed with the appeal on behalf of the four surviving appellants. At the hearing of the appeal learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal ought • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 863 to be dismissed as incompetent since the same had - abated on the death of the first appellant without his legal representatives being brought on reoord. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, oon· tended that whatever might be the position aa regards the share to which Mehar Singh was entitled in the property purchased, the interest of the deceased was distinct and separate from that of the others and that the abatement could be in any event only partial and would not affect the continuance of the appeal by the surviving appellant1 at least as regards their share in the property. A1 the deed of sale under which the appellants purchas· ed the property was not among the printed records of this Court, the appeal was adjourned in order to enable learned Counsel for the appoUants to produce it and substantiate his contention tha' the interest of the deceased Mehar Singh wa.1 diitinct and separate. An English translation of the deed of sale has now been produced before us and a perusal of it indirates that the submission made on behalf of the appellants is not sustainable. The consideration for the sale is a sum of Rs.22,750/- and the conveyance recites that Mehar Singh and the second appellant had paid one half amounting to Rs. 11,375/- while the other three appellants had paid the other half. It is therefore not a case of a sale of any separated item of property in favour of the deceased-appellant but of one entire set of properties to be enjoyed by two sets of vendees in equal share8. It is clear law that there can be no partial pre-emption becau1e pre-emption is the substitution of the pre-emptor in place of the V<'ndee and if the decree in favour of the pre-emptors in respect of the share of the deceased l\f ehar ~ingh has become final it is manifest that there would be two conflicting decrees if the appeal should be allowed and a decree for J96S - B•mScru~ v. Munshi 1962 Ram Saru; •. Munshi ' • 864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] pre-emption insofar as appellants 2' to 5 are concerned is interfered with. Where a decree is a joint one and a part of the decree has become final by reason of abatement, the entire appeal must be held to be abated. It is not necessary to cite authority for so obvious a position but we might refer to the decision of this court in Jhanda Singh v. Gurmukh Singh (deceasW,) (1). The result is that the appeal fails as having abated and is dismissed with costs. Civil appeal No. 139 of 1961: The materia.1 provision of s. 15 of the Aot relevant for the consideration of the constitutional point raised in this appeal is s. 15(a), but as the validity of other clauses of the same section are challenged in the other appeals, we consider it convenient to set out the other relevant ones also: "15. Subject to the provisions of section 14 the right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immoveable property shall vest- ( a) where the sale is by a sole owner or occupancy tenant or, in the oase of land or property jointly owned or held, is by all the co-sharers jointly, in the persons in order of succession, who but for such sale would be entitled, on the death of the vendor or vendors, to inherit the land or property sold: ( b) where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property, and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly,- firstly, in the lineal descendants of the vendor in order of succession; (1) Civil Appeal No. 344 of 1956, decided on April IO, 1962. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 865 secondly, in the co-sharers, if any, who are agna.tes, in order of 11uccession; • Cc) If no person having a right of preemption under clause (a) or cla.use (b) seeks to exercise it :- ····························-··················· ...................•.....••••....•.•..... ~ ..... . thirdly, in the owner" of the eatatt; ...... " The following few facts are necess4ry to be 11tated to appreciate the manner in which the question arises. One Ram Nath sold certain agricultural land of an area of about ~5 bigha11 in .viJ!age Durja.npur in District Sangrur of Punjab to the second respondent Pooran by a deed of sale dated December 12, 1957. The vendee-Pooransold the land he had purchaaed, in favour of Ham Sarup- appellant before us. Subsequently Munshi -the first respondent -brought a suit - Suit 297 of 1958 - in the Court of the Subordinate Judge First Class at Narwana stating that he wae the son of vendor Ram Nath and claiming pre-emption under s. 15 of the Act. There were rival claims for pre-empting the same property and another suit was filed in regard to it which was tried a.long with the suit by Munshi, but this failed and is no longer of relevance. The main contest to thi:l suit by Munshi was based upon a denial of the fact that he was the son of Ram Nath. This issue was found in favour of the respondent by the Subordinate Judge who decreed the suit, which judgment was confirmed successively by the District Judge on appeal and thereafter by the High Court on second appeal. It was therefore common ground that if s. 15(a) was constitutionally valid, the sale by Ram Nath was subject to the right of Munshi. to pre-empt and that consequently his suit was properly decreed. 1962 RamSarup v. Munshi 1962 Jtsm Sarup v. Mutt•ld 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ! 1963] The constitutional validity of s.15 was not contested before· the High Court because of the decision of a Full Bench of that Court · which had upheld its validity. It wa;i only at the stage of 1tn application for a review of the Judgment of the High Court that this point was raised but the learned Judges rejected it and it was on the ground of this constitutional point that special leave was gr1tnted and that is the only point for consideration in thi1 &pJ>eal. Before adverting to the points urged by learned Counsel as regards the constitution1tl validity of s. 15 it is necessary to notice an 1trgument urged on behalf of the appellant for sustaining a contention that even apart from the unconstitutionality of the provision the right of pre-emption conferred by s. l5(a) has ce&sed to be enforceable. The argument under this he&d was rested on the opening words of s. 15 and cert1tin other provisions to which we shall immediately advert. It would be noticed that s. 15 opens with the words "Subject to the provisions of section 14 the right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land ......... shall vest". Section 14 runs in these terms: "14. No person other than a person who was at the date of sale a mem her of an agricultural tribe in the same group of agricultural tribes as the vendor shall have a right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land sold by a member of an agricultural tribe." The expression "agricultural tribe" referred to in s. 14 is defind in s. 3(4) of the Act thus: ••member of an agricultural tribe and group of agricultural tribes shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900." .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'.rS 867 Next it would be seen thats. 15 employs the words "in respect of agricultrual land". "Agricultural land" is defined in s . 3( 1) of the Act thus; " 'agricultural land' shall mean land as defined in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900 (as amended by Act I of 1907), but shall not include the rights of a mortgagee, wllether u1ufructuary or not, in such land"; Section 6 of the Act enacts; "6. A right of pre-emption shall exist in respect of agricultural land and village immoveable property, but every such right shall be subject to all the provisions and limitations in this Act contained"., and s. 23 enactlil: 11No decree shall be granted in a suit for preemption in respect of the sale of agricultural land until the plaintiff has satisfied the Court- ( a) that the sa.le in respect of which preemption is claimed is not in contravention of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900: and {b) that he is not debarred by tb.e provisions of section 14 of this Act from exercising . the right of pre-emption." Now, by the Adaptation of Laws {Third Amendment) Order, 1951, the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, has been repealed and the argument urged by the learned Counsel for_ the appellant was that by reason of the repeal of that Act the right of pre-emption granted by s. 15( a) has become una'vaiJable. The argument was somewhat on these lines. It is under s. 6 that the right of pre· emption is recognised and granted, though s. 15 1961 Ram Sarup v. Munshi ~- It yyangsr J. ' 1962 R•m Ss•up v. JLun1hi Ayyar11o1rJ. i68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) sets out the circumstances in which it arises. Under s. 6 the right is (a) in respect of "agricultural land ", and (b) the right conferred by the Act is subject to every provision and limitation contained in it • In the Act, as originally framed before the _amendment effected by the Adaptation of Laws (Third Amendment) Order, 1951 i. e., before the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, there vrere two principal limitations on the rig11t of pre-emption in respect of "agricultural land:" (I) it applied only to such land as was defined in the Punjab Alienation of Land Aot, and (2) by virtue of e. 14 there was a limitation of the group of persons who might claim the right of pre-emption if a sale took place by "a member of an agricultural tribe", and the expression "member of an agricultural tribe" was as defined by the Punjab Alienation of Land Act. Section 15 therefore was subject to the limitations of s. 14 and to the definition of 'agricultural land' and 'agricultural tribe' and this read in conjunction with the positive provision in s.23 has become wholly inapplicable and unworkable after the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act of 1900. The problem here raised is dependent upon the construction which the several provisions which we have set out earlier would bear after the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900. One thing is clear and that is that the autliority which effected the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act did not consider that Punjab Act I of 1913 had itself to be repealed. We shall now consider the effect of the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act with reference to ea.ch of the provisions:- Defin;tion of 'agricultural land' under s.3(1): Where the provisions of an Act are incorporated by reference in a later Act the repeal of the earlier Aot • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 869 has, in general, no effect upon the construction or effect of the Act in which its provisions have been incorporated. The effect of incorporation is stated by Brett, L. J., in Clarke v. Bradlaugh: (1) "Where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute the repeal of the firilt statute by a third does not affect the second.'' In the circumstances, therefore, the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Aot of 1900 has no effect on the continued operation of the Preemption Act and the expression 'agrioultural land' in the later Act has to be read as if the definition in the Alienation of Land Act had been bodily transposed into it. Section 2 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, as amended by Act I of 1907 defined 'Land' as follows: ''The expreasion 'land' means land which il!I not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agricultural or for pasture, and includes ........................ , .................. '' It is not in dispute that the land concerned in the claim for pre-emption made in the appeal satisfies this definition. We shall next take up the effect of the repeal of the ·Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, on a.14 of the Act and of the definition contained in s. 3 ( 4) thereof of the expression "member of an agricultural tribe'' and the effect of these on the right of pre-emption conferred by s. 15(a). With the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900, it is manifest that s.14 would lose all (I) (1881) 8 Q.B D. 63. 1962 Ram Sarup ..... Munshi 4yyangar J. Ram b'aiup v. JtUn•hi A. yyangar J. 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] significance, but this does not help, in any manner, the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the appellant. It would be seen that s. 14 is restrictive, in that in the case of the alienations by persons referred to in that section the right of pre-emption is conferred upon a limited group. With the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, the restriction imposed by Ii. 14 as regards the availability of the right of pre-emption to particular agricultural tribes would disappear. In other words, the effect of the removal of the limitation of s. 14 would only be that the opening words of s. 15 cease to operate. In such oiroumstances s. 14 would lose all signi· fioance because the post-Constitution law does not recognise membership of tribes as conferring any special rights and consequently the elimination of s. 14 would leave s. 15 without the limitation originally imposed upon it. In the same manner the restriction imposed upon the passing of decrees by s, 23 could also not operate after the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act but that would leave the Court with an unfettered power to grant decrees under the provisions of the Act, i. e., without the limitations imposed by s. 23. We are therefore clearly of the opinion that neither the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Aot, 1900, nor the consequential removal oft he fetters imposed by ss. 14 and 23 have the effect of rendering the substantive provision contained in s. 15 not available to those who satisfy its terms. In these circumstances we have necessarily to consider the main question raised by learned Counsel for the appellant, viz., that the rights oonferred upon the pre-emptor is an unreasonable restriction on the right of vendors "to hold and dispose of property" and of prospective vendees ''to acquire property'' guaranteed to citizens of India by Art. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 871 , Before proceeding to consider the question about the constitutional validity of s. 15( a) of the Act, it is necessary to mention that s. 15 of the Act has been the subject of very substantial amendments effected by the P(1njab Pre-emption {Amendment) Act of 1960 (Act 10 of 1960). This however makes no difference to t}ie present appeal since the relevant portion of s. 15 as amended reads: "15. (I) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and Tillage immoveable property shall vest- ( a) where the sale is by a sole · .,.- owner- .,_ j FIRST, in the son or daughter or son's son or daughter's son of the vendor;" In view of this feature, it is needless to consider in this appeal as to whether the amending Act is retrospective and if so, the degree of retros· pectivity- a question which falls for decision only in Civil Appeal No. 510of1961. It is common ground iha.t the right of pre· emption granted by the statute is a restriction on the right "to hold and dispose of property" on the part of the vendor- the right guaranteed by Art.19 ( 1) ( f) of the Constitution. The question, however, is whether the restriction imposed is reasonable and in the interest of the general public within Art. 19(5) of the Constitution. The general question about the impaot of the right conferred by Art. l9(l)(f) on the right of pre-emption has been dealt with exhaustively in the judgment of this Court in Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath (')and it is ll) (1952J Supp. 3 S.C.R. 724. 1962 Rom Sdru; v. Munahi 1961 Ram Sarup v. Munshi Ayyangar J. 872 SUPREME COURT BEPORTS [1963) unnecessary to cover the ground again. The proper approach to the question would be as to whether the grounds which are stated to underlie the provision are reasonable judged in the light of preeentday standards and needs of the community and a.re in the interests of the general public. The question a.bout the reasonableness of this restriction contained in s. 15 of the Act was considered by a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab in Uttam Singh v. Kartar Singh ( 1) and as the grounds stated there have been referred to with approval in subsequent decisions of the Punjab High Court and were relied on before us by learned Counsel for the respondent we might as well extract the passage in full : "It is plain that the objects underlying ss. 15 and 16 of the Aot may be briefly enumerated as follows: ( 1) to preserve the integrity of the village and the village community; (2) (3) (4) (5) to avoid fraimentation of holdings; to implement the agnatic theory of the law. of succession; to reduce the chances of litigation and friction and to promote public order and domestic~comfort; and to promote private and public decency and convenience." The reference here in the above passage to "the promotion of public order and domestic comfort" and to "private and public dec1>ncy and convenience" obviously have relevance to urban immoveable property dealt with in s. 16. The (I) A. l. R. 1954 Punjab 55. • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 873 , grounds on which the reasonableness of the right of pre-emption granted by law in regard to agricultural property dealt with in s. 15 would therefore appear to be the first four of the above. Among them much stress could not be laid on the avoidance of chances of litigation and friction because the existence of the right of pre-emption could also ,give rise to litigation which otherwise might not exist. Nor oan the ground of avoidance of fragmentation of holdings afford assistance to sustain the claim of a son to pre·empt in the event of a sale by a sole owner-father, for that criterion has primary relf'ovanoe to the right of pre-emption enjoyed by co-sharers and the like. The grounds for upholding s. 15{a) as reason1ble and in the interest of the general public therefore finally resolve themselves into two: (1) to preserve the integrity' of the village and the village community; and (2) to implement the 1tgna.tic rule of succession. The objective underlying the first ground is prima faoie reasonable and calculated to further the interest of the general public. lt was however pointed out by learned Counsel for the a.ppellant tha• with the large scale migration of population into Punjab consequent on the problem8 created by partition there has been a disintegration of the village community and that in the circumstances, what is at the present date imperatively required is not the keeping out of strangers from rural areas but rather for their being absorbed into the villa.ge community and that in that context the existence of a. law which prevented such ab8orption could not be characterised as being either reasonable or in the interests of the general public. Though we see some force in this submission of learned 1962 Ram Saru; v. Munshi .d y7angar J, 196Z Ram Sar"p Y. Muni1li1 A,Jangar J. 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]. Counsel we are unable to accept it as a final and " conclusive answer to the argument against the reasonableness of the provision for we find that in the schemes for rehabilitation of the refugees the principle of the integrity of the village community and the need to maintain some degree of cohesion as regards the population in each village has been observed ancl, indeed, forms the basis of the methods by which different groups of refugees were settled in various parts of the Punjab. It has thus been possible to reconcile somewhat the needs of the refugees being settled in India, with the preservation of the integrity of the village community. Even if this ground cannot serve to sustain the constitutionality of the provision, we considf'r that the other ground viz., that the next in succession should have t.he chance of retaining the property in the family, would suffice to render the restriction reasonable and in the interest of the genernl public within Art. 19(5). In this connection we might refer to the reasC'ning in the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Siremalv Kantilal(1) where the learned Judges struck down as unconstitutional a provision in s. 3 of the Marwar Preemption Act' which granted a right of pre-emption "to persons related within three degrees to the vendor of the house or building-plot proTided that the nearer in degree shall haTe priority over one more remote" as an unreasonable restriction on the right conferred by Art. 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. The basis of this ruling was that the impugned enactment conferred the right of preemption on all relations within three degrees &nd did not restrict it to the members of the family: .. Under s.15 of the Act, particularly after the amendment effected by Act 1 (l of 1960, the right of preemption is confined to the members of the family "-'-": (I) A.I.R. 1954 Rajasthan 195. ~· 3 S.C R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 875 of the Tendor, i. e., those who would have succeeded to the property in the absence of any alienation. The relevant portion of s. 15 ( l) after amendment reads: "15. (1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immoveable property shall vest- (a) where the sale is by' a:sole owner,- FIRST, in the son or daughter or son's son or daughter's son of the vendor; SECONDLY, in the brother or brother's son of the vendor; THIRDLY, in the father's brother or father's brother's son of the vendor; FOURTHLY, .................. " No doubt, the son and the other members of the family would not have been entitled. to a present interest in the property alienatf'd and consequently would not have a right to prevent the alienation (in which event, however, it is needless to add that a right to pre-empt was wholly unnecessary . as a means of preserving the property), but they would have a legitimate expectation of succeeding to the property-an expectation founded on and promoted by the commiousness of the community. If the social consciousness did engender such feelings, and taking into account the very strong sentimental value that is attached to the continued possession of family property in the Punjab, it could not be said that the restriction on the right of free alienation imposed by s. 15( I)( a) limited as it is to small clasa of near relations of the vendor is either unreasonable or not in the interest of the genera.I public. The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 1901 Ram Saru/ v. Muna hi - Ayy;ngar J 1962 Ram Sarup v. Munshi .dy)'angilr J. 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] Oivil Appeal No. 147 of 1961. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows : The appellant-Da.Iip Singh purchased under a deed dated June I, 1957, agricultural land measuring 98 bighas and 10 biswa,s situated in village Bailerkha in district Sangrur under a registered deed of sale. The vendors were Nihal Singh, Wazir Singh and Gurdial Singh who are respondents 2 to 4 before us. Sunder Singh-brother of respondents 2 & 3 and uncle of the 4th respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Sub.Judge, Narwana, for preemption basing his claim under s. 15( a) of the Act. It is manifest that even under the amended s.15 a person in the position of the first respondent has a right to pre.empt. It would be seen that under s. lli(a), as it originally stood, the right of pre-emption is conferred upon persons who would succeed as heir to the vendor in the event of his death. In other words, pre-emption in such oases is the grant of an option to the heirs to retain property in the family. As we ha,ve already pointed out in dealing with the claim by a vendor's son in Appeal 139 of 1961, we consider that the provisions contained in s. 15( a), as it originally stood, as well as in the modified form in whioll it has been re-enacted do not transgress the limits of reasonableness required by Art.19(5) of the Constitution. As the constitutionality of s.15(&) was the only ground which was or could be canvassed before us in this appeal and as we are rejecting it, it follows that the appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Oivil Appeal No. 610 of 1961 What now remains to be dealt with is Civil Appeal 510 of 1961, This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent as plaintiff for pre-emption of certain agricultural land in village ..( 3 S C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 877 Fatehabad in Amritsar district. The sale which gave rise to the suit was under a deed dated December 29, 1949, in favour of the appellant-Dayal Singh. The c1aim to pre-empt was based on s. 15 (c) "thirdly'' of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which has already been set out. The expression "estate" which is used in cl. ( c) "thirdly" is not 0 defined by the Act but by reason of its s. 3 (6) the definition ins. 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is attracted to it. Turning now to s. 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (Act XVII of 1887), it defines an 'estate' as meaning, inter alia, "any area for which a separate record-of-rights has been made." It was the case of the plaintiff-first respondent before us that he owned land in the "estate" whereas the vendee- -the appellant before us did not own any land there. The . defendant while not disputing that the plaintiff owned land in the village or the correctness of the allegation that the land was in an ''estate'', sought to prove that he too owned land in the same village and "estate" but in this he failed. As the case of the plaintiff was directly covered by the terms of the statute his suit was decreed by the trial Court on November 8, 1951, and an appeal and second appeal therefrom were also dismissed. It was from this judgment of the High Court that this appeal has been brought and the principal point on which leave was granted rehted to the constitutionality of the provision in s. 15 of the Pre-emption Act upon which the respondent based his claim t• pre-empt. In regard to the point about the constitutional validity of s. 15 ( c) "thirdly" we consider that the case is clearly covered by the judgment of this Court in Bhau Rum v. Baij Nath (1) where the Court upheld the validity of the right of pre-emption granted under Oh, XlV of the Berar Land Revenue Code (Appeal 430 of 1958). In the (l 1 [1962] Supp. 3 SC.R. 724. 196! Ram Sarup v. Munshi Ayyangar J. 196B R•m Sarup •• Munshi AyyanzarJ. 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] case of an estate within e. 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1887, s. 61 of the Act enacts: "61 (I) In the case of every estate, the entire · estate and the landowner or, if there are more than one, the landowners jointly and severally, shall be liable for the land revenue for the time being assessed on the estate : Provided that. (a) (b) the.State Government may by notification declare that in anv estate a holding or its owner 11hall not be Iiabloi for any part of the land-revenue for the time being assessed on the estate except that part which is payable in respect of the holding; and (2) A notification under proviso (a) to sub. section ( 1) may have reference to any single estate or to any class of estates or estates generally in any local area." Thus it will be seen that l\n "estate" is an unit of assessment. and there is a joint and several Iia.bility on persons owning land within the "estate" to pay the entire assessment due on the estate. Thus though it is not really the case of a co-sharer, it is somewhat akin to that of a co-sharer because of the joint liability for payment of land revenue. We therefore consider that the restriction on the right of a vendor in snob a case is a reasonable one and not repugnant to Art. 19 of the Constitution. As le11,rned Counsal for the appellant desired to have time to ascertain whether there had been a notification of the Vical Government such as is referred to in a. 61 of the Punjab L'tnd Revenue • __ / 3 S.C.R, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 879 Code, we adjourned the oase to enable him to produce the notifioation, if there was one and we were informed that there was none. ' .• If therefore the matters had stood as under the law as enacted in s. 15 of the Act the appeal would - have to be dismissed. The Punjab Legislature, however, effected substantial amendments to the Punja.b Pre-emption Act of 1913 by Punjab Act 10 of 1960 and it is the impact of this later legislation on the rights of the parties to this appeal that now requires to be considered. Punjab Act 10 of 1960 received the assent of the Governor on February 2, 1960, and was published in the Punjab Government Gazette two days later. By s. 4 of the Amending Act s. 15 of the parent Act was repealed and in its place was substituted a new provision which omitted to confer a right of pre-emption in the case of persons "owning land in the estate " as the original section 15 (c) "thirdly" had done. Retrospective effect was givin to the provisions contained in the Amending Act by the insertion of a new s. 31 in ·the parent Act which read: "31. No court shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption whether instituted before or after the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption (AmendmE'nt) Act, 1959, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act''. It may be mentioned that the figure 1959 in s. 31 is an obvious mistake for 1960 which is the correct year of the Amending Act. The question now for consideration is whether by reason of this amendment in the law, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the decree which he obtainf'