1. Suit for pre-emption of agricultural land sold by a female vendor — eligibility of illegitimate children under Section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Gulraj Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
Mota Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 467 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; M/s. Yashpal Gandhi and S. D. Goswami, Advocates, for Respondents.
Important Points
The terms "son" or "daughter" in a statute normally refer only to legitimate children born in wedlock, unless the statute expressly provides otherwise or the context indicates a broader meaning. Such construction cannot be altered by referring to personal laws of intestate succession.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 - Section 15(2)(b) - Interpretation of "son or daughter" - Whether the expression includes illegitimate children - The normal rule of construction of the words "child", "son" or "daughter" occurring in a statute is that they include only legitimate children, i.e., born in wedlock, unless there is an express provision in the statute to give these words a more extended meaning or the context indicates a more comprehensive sense indicating merely a blood relationship apart from the question of legitimacy (Para 4).
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Reading in conjunction with other laws - A provision of a statute cannot be construed by traveling beyond the enactment to ascertain the class of persons entitled to succeed as heirs under a different act, such as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, especially when the devolution provided in the statute differs from the law of intestate succession (Para 3).
(C) General Application of Statutes - Where a statute is of general application and applicable to persons of different religions, its construction cannot be made to depend on the personal law of succession applicable to the vendor, as this would lead to inconsistent interpretations based on the vendor's faith or changes in personal law (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
A female owner sold agricultural land via a registered deed of sale. The illegitimate son and daughter of the vendor filed a suit to pre-empt the sale. While the trial court and District Court granted the decree for pre-emption, the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that illegitimate children are not comprehended within the class of persons entitled to pre-emption under Section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the expression "son or daughter" in Section 15(2)(b) of the Act refers only to legitimate children. The submission that the Act should be read in conjunction with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was rejected as the Pre-emption Act is a separate statute of general application and its construction cannot be tied to the laws of intestate succession.
Issues: Whether the words "son or daughter of such female" occurring in Section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as amended by Act X of 1960, include an illegitimate son or illegitimate daughter of such female.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the normal rule of construction for the terms "son" or "daughter" in a statute is that they include only legitimate children born in wedlock. In the absence of an express provision extending the meaning or a context suggesting a blood relationship regardless of legitimacy, the terms must be interpreted strictly. Furthermore, the construction of a statute of general application cannot vary based on the personal law of succession applicable to the vendor.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Reading in conjunction with other laws - A provision of a statute cannot be construed by traveling beyond the enactment to ascertain the class of persons entitled to succeed as heirs under a different act, such as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, especially when the devolution provided in the statute differs from the law of intestate succession (Para 3).
(C) General Application of Statutes - Where a statute is of general application and applicable to persons of different religions, its construction cannot be made to depend on the personal law of succession applicable to the vendor, as this would lead to inconsistent interpretations based on the vendor's faith or changes in personal law (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
A female owner sold agricultural land via a registered deed of sale. The illegitimate son and daughter of the vendor filed a suit to pre-empt the sale. While the trial court and District Court granted the decree for pre-emption, the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that illegitimate children are not comprehended within the class of persons entitled to pre-emption under Section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the expression "son or daughter" in Section 15(2)(b) of the Act refers only to legitimate children. The submission that the Act should be read in conjunction with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was rejected as the Pre-emption Act is a separate statute of general application and its construction cannot be tied to the laws of intestate succession.
Issues: Whether the words "son or daughter of such female" occurring in Section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as amended by Act X of 1960, include an illegitimate son or illegitimate daughter of such female.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the normal rule of construction for the terms "son" or "daughter" in a statute is that they include only legitimate children born in wedlock. In the absence of an express provision extending the meaning or a context suggesting a blood relationship regardless of legitimacy, the terms must be interpreted strictly. Furthermore, the construction of a statute of general application cannot vary based on the personal law of succession applicable to the vendor.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
BISHAN NARAIN, NAUNIT LAL, S.D.GOSWAMI, YASHPAL GANDHI
BISHAN NARAIN, NAUNIT LAL, S.D.GOSWAMI, YASHPAL GANDHI
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 15 of the Pre-emption Act should be interpreted in conjunction with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to include illegitimate children as eligible pre-emptors. (Para 3 )
3. Statutory terms son or daughter normally denote legitimate children unless the statute expressly provides otherwise or the context indicates a broader meaning of blood relationship. (Para 4 )
4. In the absence of express provision or contextual evidence to the contrary, the words son or daughter in a statute refer only to legitimate children. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 5 )
6. Does the term son or daughter in a statute generally include illegitimate children?
No, the normal rule of construction is that the words child, son, or daughter occurring in a statute include only legitimate children born in wedlock, unless there is an express provision or context indicating a more comprehensive meaning. (Para 4 )
7. Can the Punjab Pre-emption Act be interpreted using the succession rules of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
No, the court held that the right of pre-emption is a statutory right and its construction cannot depend on the personal law of intestate succession applicable to the vendor, as the Act applies generally across different religions. (Para 3 )
8. Does Section 15(2)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 include illegitimate children of a female vendor?
No, the court determined that the words son or daughter in Section 15(2)(b) refer only to legitimate children, consistent with the interpretation of similar terms elsewhere in the section. (Para 4 )
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. :
Do the words "son or daughter of such female" occurring in S. 15 (2) (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 as amended by Act X of 1960 include an illegitimate son or illegitimate daughter of such female is the only question that arises in this appeal by special leave.
2. The appellants are the illegitimate son and daughter of one Sardarni Prem Prakash Kaur. By a registered deed of sale dated December 1, 1956 the said lady sold 18 bighas, 1 biswas and 5 1/2 biswansis of agricultural land for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents. The appellants filed a suit to pre-empt this sale. There was some dispute about the consideration actually paid but we are not now concerned with it. Both the trial court as well as the District Court on appeal granted to the appellants a decree for pre-emption, though to a limited extent. The respondents filed a second appeal to the High Court and the learned Judges, by the judgment now under appeal, directed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the appellants were not comprehended within the class of persons who were entitled to pre-emption under S. 15 (2) (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as it now stands under the amendment effected by Act X of 1960. It is from this judgment that, by special leave, the present appeal has been brought.
3. Mr. Bishan Narain, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted to us that the provision in S. 15 of the Pre-emption Act must be read in conjunction with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which made provision for the devolution of property belonging to a female owner and that as under the latter enactment illegitimate children of a Hindu female were entitled to succeed to her property, it must be held that when the Punjab legislature used in 1960 the expression son or daughter it meant a son or a daughter who would be entitled to succeed as an heir of a Hindu female. We are unable to accept this submission of learned Counsel. Section 15 whose construction calls for consideration reads as follows:
"15. Persons in whom right of pre-emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immoveable property. - (1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable 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 fathers brother or father s brothers son of the vendor;
FOURTHLY, in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof:
(b) where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly,
FIRST, in the sons or daughters or sons sons or daughters sons of the vendor or vendors;
SECONDLY, in the brothers or brother s sons of the vendor or the vendors;
THIRDLY, in the fathers brothers or father s brother s sons of the vendor or vendors;
FOURTHLY, in the other co-sharers
FIFTHLY, in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof;
(c) where the sale is of land or property owned jointly and is made by all the co-sharers jointly-
FIRST, in the sons or daughters or sons sons or daughters sons of the vendors;
SECONDLY, in the brothers or brother s sons of the vendors;
THIRDLY, in the father s brothers or father s brother s sons of the vendors;
FOURTHLY, in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendors or any one of them the land or property sold or a part thereof.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)-
(a) where the sale is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her father or brother or the sale in respect of such land or property is by the son or daughter of such female after inheritance, the right of pre-emption shall vest,-
(i) if the sale is by such female, in her brother or brother s son;
(ii) if the sale is by the son or daughter of such female, in the mother s broth
