RAMJILAL AND ORS. ETC.versusGHISA RAM ETC.

A                         RAMJILAL AND ORS. ETC.
                                         v.
                               GHISA RAM ETC.

                               JANUARY 24, 1996
                                                                                    ..
B               [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
                         G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:

C          S. 15(J)(b}-Entitlement to pre-emption-Suit filed by co-
    owne1~Decreed by tlial   Cowt-Confinned in Jim appeal-Second appeal
    dismissed-Appeal to Supreme Cowt--Pending appeal Haryana Pre-emption
    Amendment Act, 1995 came into forcc---Right of pre-emption of co-owners
    taken away-Held, appeal in continuation of 01iginal proceedings-Right and
    remedy-Should be available not only 011 the date of sale but also on the date
D   of suit, decree and disposal of appeal-Pending appeal the right has been
    taken away by the amending Act, the 1ight to pre-emption is lost-Hence suit
    for pre-enzption not 1naintainabll~a1yana Pre-enzption Aniendnient Act,
    1995.

          Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
E
          Section 57----All Acts of State Legislature and Parliament-Taking judi-
    cial notice of----Hmyana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4017 of
    1983 etc.
F
         From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.83 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 378 of 1983.

          D.V. Sehgal, D.S. Tewatia, AK. Goel, Mrs. Sheela Goel, P. Narasim-
    han, R.S. Sodhi, K.K. Mohan and Ms. Geetanjali Mohan for the appearing
G   parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted in the SLP.

H         Substitution allowed.
                                         974
                        RAMJILALv. GHISARAM                               975

      These appeals were referred to a larger Bench by order of this Court       A
made on lOlh May, 1994. The facts in C.A. No. 4017 are sufficient for
disposal of these appeals.

       The facts are that on July 16, 1979, certain lands situated in Kutiyana
Tchsil & District Sirsa were sold by Mathri, Dilawar and Santosh Kumar           B
to the appellants by registered sale deed dated June 16, 1979. The respon-
dent filed Suit No. 581/80 in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa under
Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 on July 18, 1980 for
pre-emption of the land from the appellants on the premise that the lands
originally belonged lo one Shri Ram who died in the year 1944. His widow
Dhapan had remained in possession as Widow's Estate. She cannot be said          C
to have inherited the property through her husband. She had no right to
sell the lands to the appellants as she remained limited owner. Therefore,
being a co-owner of Shri Ram, the respondent is entitled to pre-emption
of the lands sold by Dhapan to the appellants. Accepting the contention
of the respondent, the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, it was           D
confirmed. Second appeal was dismissed. Thus these appeals by special
leave. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enlarges the
\Vi(h1\vs' estate known to sastric law; removed the fetters on possession and
blossom into an absolute right to the wido\v.

       Pending appeals, the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 E
(Act No. 10 of 1995) came into force w.e.f. July 7, 1995. The question
arises: whether the respondents are entitled to pre-emption. This con-
troversy was considered by this Court Karan Singh & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh
(Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., C.A. @ SLP (C) Nos. 14362 & 14372 of 1986
decided on 24th January, 1996 by a Bench of which two of us [K. Ramas- F
wamy & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.] were members. Therein, it was held that the
appeal was continuation of original proceedings. When the appellate court
has seisin of the whole case, the entire controversy would be at large and
the issue would be open for reconsideration. Thus the whole case is at
large. For the purpose of pre-emption, the right and remedy must be
available not only on the date of the sale but also on the date of the suit G
as well as on the date when the decree is made and is finally to be affirmed
or need to be modified at the time of the disposal of the appeal. Since the
appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, the right and the
remedy should continue to subsist till this Court decides the controversy,
if the appeal is presented and is pending disposal. Since the statute had H
    976                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A intervened and the Act has taken away the right of pre-emption of the
    co-owners and confined the right and remedy to be only in favour of the
    tenants, the respondents have lost their right of pre-emption. In other
    Words, co-owners' right of pre-emption has been taken away by amendment
    to the Act. Consequentially, the respondents have lost the right, pending
    the appeals. This Court under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act shall
B   take judicial notice of all the laws in force in the territory of India. The
    Court would take judicial notice of the Acts of State Legislature and the
    Parliament. Accordingly, taking notice of the change in law the right and
    remedy to the respondent have been lost. As a result, the snit for pre-emp-
    tion is not maintainable.
c
         The main appeal as well as connected appe•ls are accordingly al-
    lowed. Consequentially, the suits stand dismissed. But, in the circumstan-
    ces, without costs.

    G.N.                                                      Appeals allowed.