Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab preemption repeal act 1973 Page 1 of about 17,398 results (0.358 seconds)

Amarjit Kaur Vs. Pritam Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1974SC2068; (1975)77PLR19; (1974)2SCC363; [1975]1SCR605

..... section 3 of the punjab preemption (repeal) act, 1973, provides:bar to pass decree in suit for preemption--on and from the date of commencement of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973, no court shall pass a decree in any suit for pre-emption.the section, in effect, says that no court shall decree a suit for preemption after the coming into force of the act. ..... the punjab preemption (repeal) act, 1973 (act ii of 1973) received the assent of the governor of punjab on april 6, 1973 and was published in the punjab gazette on april 9, 1973. ..... in other words, if the high court were to confirm the decree, allowing the suit for preemption, it would be passing a decree in a suit for preemption, for, when the appellate court confirms a decree, it passes a decree of its own, and therefore, the high court was right in allowing the appeal.6. ..... the high court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the provision of section 3 of the above act should govern the decision. ..... as an appeal is a re-hearing, it would follow that if the high court were to dismiss the appeal, it would be passing a decree in a suit for preemption. .....

Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Shri Raj NaraIn and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1975SC2299; 1975(Supp)SCC1; [1976]2SCR347

..... v. mohan singh : [1975]1scr605 dealt with the provisions of section 3 of the punjab preemption (repeal) act, 1973, according to which on and from the date of commencement of that act, no court shall pass a decree in any suit for pre- ..... emption. this court held that the above provision was also applicable to appeals which were pending at the commencement of that act as an appeal was in the nature of a re-hearing, and as such even if the suit had been decreed by the trial court, the suit was liable to be dismissed because of the coming into force of the punjab preemption (repeal) act during the pendency of the appeal, it is plain that only those vendees obtained the benefit of the above act who had filed appeals against the decree awarded against them in pre-emption ..... judgment. he said that by the repeal of the provisions of the representation of the people act, 1951, the amending body had wiped out not only the election petition but also the judgment of the high court and has deprived the respondent of the right to raise any dispute as regards the validity of the election of the appellant and, therefore, there was no dispute to be adjudicated upon by the amending .....

Sakuntala (Died) and ors. Vs. V. Sarangapani Naidu

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1984)1MLJ336

..... pritam singh : [1975]1scr605 , the supreme court had occasion to consider the impact of section 3 of the punjab preemption (repeal) act, 1973, which came into force while an appeal was pending before the high court against a decree in a suit for pre-emption, the said section having imposed a bar to pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption and the supreme court upheld the decision of the high court in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit for pre-emption. ..... jamal mohammed, learned counsel for the appellants in this second appeal, who are the legal representatives of the original defendant, in expatiation of the substantial question of law, of course, to some extent, developing the point, not strictly in accordance with the substantial question of law, as it stands framed, would first submit that the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining the relief of scaling down under tamil nadu act xxxviii of 1972, and hence, by virtue of the proviso to section 6 of tamil nadu act xl of 1978, there could not be a further scaling ..... on appropriate issues on the pleadings in the case, the first court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of tamil nadu act xxxviii of 1972; the deduction claimed by the plaintiff towards property tax is also tenable; and the defendant is not entitled to claim anything towards property tax is also tenable; and the defendant is not entitled to claim anything towards improvements. .....

Darshan Singh Vs. Ram Pal Singh and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1991SC1654; JT1990(4)SC561; 1990(2)SCALE1114; 1992Supp(1)SCC191; [1990]Supp3SCR212

..... no doubt that from the commencement of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973 no court shall pass a decree in any suit for preemption. ..... [1974] 2 scc 364 interpreting section 3 of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973 which provided that on and from the date of punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973 no court shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption, and the appellant challenged the correctness of a decree passed by the high court dismissing a suit for pre-emption, after the act came into force this court observed that the appeal was a rehearing and if the high court were to confirm the decree allowing the suit for pre-emption, it would be passing ..... a decree in a suit for pre-emption, for, when the ..... 4 of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973, the punjab pre-emption (repeal) ordinance 1973 was repealed. ..... section 3 of that act put a complete bar to pass decrees in suit for pre-emption and said:on and from the date of commencement of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973, no court shall pass a decree in any suit for .....

Sumitra Devi Vs. Rameshwar Dayal and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 36(1988)DLT217

..... aggarwal has been that the punjab preemption act, 1913 (for short 'the act') has since been repealed by the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973, and as such the suit was incompetent. ..... repeal of this act in punjab by the repealing act of 1973 would have no bearing on the applicability of the act to delhi. ..... he pointed out that by act x of 1960 of the punjab legislature section 16 has in fact been repealed as a whole and has been substituted by a provision creating a right only in a tenant to preempt the property held by him when the landlord desires to sell it. ..... in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint the plaintiffs did state that there was a custom in the locality that a co-sharer would have a preferential right to purchase the share of the other co-sharer and further the premises in question were situate in old city of delhi in daiwara, nai sarak within the boundary walls of old delhi where the customs of pre-emption had judicially been noticed and recognised and further that the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 was applicable to delhi. ..... punjab act x of 1960 however has not been extended to delhi and here the punjab pre-emption act of 1913, the act with which wearer concerned, still applies'. ..... the repeal of the act in punjab does not automatically repeal the act as in force in delhi. mr. .....

Sadhu Singh and anr. Vs. Dharam Dev and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1980SC1654; (1981)1SCC510; 1980(12)LC802(SC)

v.r. krishna iyer, j.1. the short and single point raised by shri harbans singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in this appeal by special leave is that the decree for preemption passed against the appellant is on insatiable in view of section 3 of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act. 1973 which reads thus:section 3 :bar to pass decree in suit for pre-emption on and from the date of commencement of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973 no court shall pass in a decree in any suit for pre emption.2. the section is plain and its meaning unambiguous that there is a statutory mandate against passing a decree for enforcement of a fight of preemption in the state of punjab, the only point here is as to whether a decree already passed by the trial court, challenged in appeal after the act was passed and affirmed on appeal would fall within the mischief of section 3 while the case pends in the high court; we think that section 3 interdicts the passing of a decree even in appeal. for one thing a decree challenged in appeal is re-opened and the appellate hearing is a re-hearing of the whole subject matter and when a decree is passed in appeal the first decree merges in the appellate decree and it comes within the scope of section 3. the decision of this court in 'official liquid it or v. r. desikachar' reported in : [1975]1scr605 directly covers the situation.3. necessarily, we have to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit, but in the circumstances no costs.

Partap Singh Vs. Nirmal Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1977P& H358

..... , which, as earlier observed, was allowed by a learned single judge of this court on the ground that after the enforcement of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'repealing act') no decree could be passed in a suit for preemption. ..... submitted by the learned counsel that an appeal against the decree of the first appellate court in respect of improvements only, would not be deemed to be an appeal against the decree for possession by preemption and that while dismissing such an appeal which has been filed only in respect of compensation, no decree shall be deemed to have been passed by the court in a suit for pre-emption after the coming into force of the repealing act. ..... the improvements alleged to have been made was pressed before the learned additional district judge; that the decree for possession by pre-emption passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant had become final as the same was not challenged on merits before the first appellate court; that the regular second appeal filed in this court by the vendees was only against compensation and that in this situation, the learned single judge fell in error in invoking the provisions of the repealing act and in dismissing the suit of the ..... find that the learned single judge was right in allowing the appeal of the vendees in view of the coming into force of the repealing act.5. ..... as earlier observed, during the pendency of the appeal, the repealing act came into force and its provisions had to be .....

Bhikha Ram Vs. Ram Sarup and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1992SC207; JT1991(4)SC199; (1992)101PLR49; (1992)1SCC319; [1991]Supp2SCR119; 1992(1)LC445(SC)

..... be mentioned that the mother state, the state of punjab, had repealed the act in 1973 but it continued to be in force in the state of haryana which prior to 1966 was a part of the state of punjab. ..... : air1962sc1476 wherein the vires of a provision of the rewa state pre-emption act which conferred a right of pre-emption based on vicinage and the right of preemption conferred on co-sharers and the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 were challenged on the ground of infraction of article 19(1)(f) of the constitution. ..... the constitutional validity of section 15(1)(a) of the punjab preemption act, 1913 was challenged on the ground that it offended the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19(1)(f) in ram ..... section 15 of this act before its amendment in 1960, in the case of sale of a share out of joint land or property, the right of preemption was conferred firstly on the lineal descendents of the vendor in order of succession; secondly, in the co-sharers, if any, who are agnates, in order of succession; thirdly in persons not included under firstly or secondly above, in order of succession, who but for such sale would be entitled, on death of the vendor, to inherit the land or property sold and fourthly, in the co-sharers. ..... 's case, this court, therefore, held that what was said about the right of preemption granted to co-sharers in relation to article 19(1)(f) of the constitution applied with equal force to justify the classification in relation to articles 14 and 15 of the constitution.4. .....

Hakim and anr. Vs. Santu and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... -- in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8 (2) of the punjab preemption act, the lieutenant-governor is pleased to declare that in the district of kangra the right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall be limited- (1) in the case of a sale falling under clause (a) of section 15 to the persons mentioned in the said clause; (2) in the case of a sale falling under clause (b) of section 15 to the persons mentioned in the sub-clauses firstly, secondly and thirdly of the said clause. 2. ..... the notification of 1917 refers to the original section 15 of the punjab preemption act, 1913 and not the substituted and amended section 15 of the punjab pre-emption (amendment) act no. ..... 15 of the punjab preemption act, 1913 and also section 15 substituted by the punjab pre-emption (amendment) act no. ..... 4662, dated 6th march, 1917, issued under section 8 (2) of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913, is still alive and operative or has been impliedly repealed by substituted and amended section 15 of the punjab pre-emption (amendment) act no. ..... the himachal pradesh division bench in the case of kalu ram (air 1973 him pra 81') (supra) has only considered one aspect, that the numbering of the section 15 and its sub-sections in the original act and the amended act remains the same. ..... madho ram, (ilr (1972) him pra 63) ; (air 1973 him pra 81) different views were taken, therefore, the case was referred to a larger bench. .....

Jagtar Singh and anr. Vs. Kartar Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1980P& H313

..... 3 of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act (ii of 1973) (hereinafter to be called the repealing act), 1973.3. ..... the learned single judge though agreed with the contention of the appellants that the deposit of the decretal amount had been made within time yet dismissed the appeal on the ground that the acceptance of the appeal will tantamount to passing a new decree of pre emption in the suit which could not be done as the punjab pre-emption act had been repealed by s. ..... however the execution proceedings cannot be treated at the same level and the executing court cannot go behind a decree, nor has it the jurisdiction to affirm, modify or reverse the same i am, therefore, of the view that the repealing act bas not taken away the jurisdiction of the appellate court in the present case in which the only matter waiting decision is the validity of the objections filed by the vendee-judgment-debtor.4. ..... according to the learned counsel for the appellants, by dismissing the objections of the vendee-judgment-debtors, no new decree for pr-emption bad to be passed or affirmed so as to attract the provisions of the repealing act at the time when the illegal compromise was effected by hardial singh the next friend of the minor plaintiffs, the time far deposit of the decretal amount bad not et expired and 18 days were still left. ..... in these circumstances, the original decree for preemption on was perfectly valid operative an executable, argued the learned counsel. .....