Back
1935 Supreme(SC) 59
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD THANKERTON, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SIR GEORGE RANKIN
MUKERJEE, OFFICIAL RECEIVER - Appellant
Versus
RAMRATAN KUER, (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Patna.
Decided On : November 12, 1935.
Solicitors for appellant: Downer & Lewis.
A retrospective statute that deems consent for land transfers to quiet old titles applies to pending litigation unless a saving clause is expressly provided, as courts must administer the law as it exists at the time of the decision.
Headnote:(A) Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885; Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1934 - Section 10, Section 26(n) and 26(o) - Transfer of occupancy holding - Retrospective application of legislation - Deemed consent of landlord.
(B) Duty of a Court to administer the law of the land as it exists at the date of administration.
(C) Retrospective provisions intended to quiet old titles apply to pending litigation unless a saving clause is expressly provided or can be implied.
Facts of the case:
A suit for ejectment was brought on the ground that a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding was invalid. While the appeal was pending, an amendment act was passed which provided that landlords are deemed to have consented to every transfer of such holding made before a specified date.
Findings of Court:
The retrospective provision of the amendment act applies to the case as there is no saving clause for pending suits. The provision aims to quiet titles and ensure security for transferees who have not been ejected over a long period.
Issues: Whether a retrospective amendment act, which deems landlord consent for transfers made before a certain date, applies to a suit already pending in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court must apply the law current at the time of the decision. A statute that abrogates substantive rights and accrued causes of action to quiet old titles applies to pending suits unless the legislature specifically excludes them.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land law
-
tenancy
-
occupancy rights
- transfer of holdings
-
occupancy rights
-
tenancy
-
statutory interpretation
- retrospective application
Judgement
Appeal (No. 68 of 1934) from a decree of the High Court (April 27, 1933) reversing a decree of the First Additional Subordinate Judge at Patna (June 20, 1930).
The first question which arose in this appeal was whether the first respondent, Musammat Ramratan Kuer, had proved that she had occupancy rights in 641.15 acres = 1005 bighas odd of raiyati land situated in the district of Patna, Bihar. She was sued by the appellant on the footing that she had taken a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding by deed dated September 28, 1916, and that he was entitled to re-enter.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Subordinate Judge made a decree ejecting the first respondent.
Upon appeal to the High Court the learned judges (Wort and Fazl Ali JJ.) were of opinion that since the date of the deed the appellant or his predecessors had recognized the right of the transferee and could not now impugn the transfer.
While the appellants appeal to the Judicial Committee was pending the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1934, was passed, which by s. 10 inserted certain sections into the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, in its application to Bihar and Orissa, s. 26 (n) of which provided that " Every person claiming an interest as landlord in any holding....shall be deemed to have given his consent to every transfer of such holding....made before January 1, 1923....."
1935. Oct. 28. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellant. The trial Court and Wort J. found that neither Ram Kishun Singh nor Ganpat Narayan Singh was a benamidar of the first respondent. The deed of September 28, 1916, was a transfer of occupancy rights and not what it purported to be, and by executing it the raiyats abandoned their holdings. If there was a sale by Ram Kishun Singh and Ganpat Narayan Singh to the first respondent that would amount to an abandonment of their holdings Dayamayi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury . (( 1914) I. L. R. 42 C. 172.) A conveyance by the occupancy tenant without the consent of his landlord is bad. The question of transferability of occupancy tenure is not a statutory right but rests on custom in Bengal Redferns Bengal Tenancy Act, 120, " Occupancy rights transferable by custom.” In the absence of custom they are non-transferable Chundrabati Koeri and Another v. Harrington . (( 1891) L. R. 18 I. A. 27.) But the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1934, by s. 10, inserts new sections, 26A to 26 (p), in s. 26 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. By s.26 (N) the landlords consent shall be deemed to have been given to the transfer of an occupancy holding made before January 1, 1923. The question is whether the rights of the parties are now to be determined by the law that existed at the time the plaint was filed, that is, to what date is the Act of 1934 retrospective ? [Reference was made to the Code of Civil Procedure, Order xli., r. 33.]
[LORD THANKERTON. If the new Act declares that this transaction, being dated in 1916, shall be valid despite the fact that consent is not given by the landlord, would not this Court be bound by that ? The duty of a Court is to administer the law of the land at the date when the Court is administering it.]
[Reference was made to Quitter v. Mapleson . (( 1882) 9 Q. B. D. 672.)] .
The respondents did not appear.
Nov. 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR GEORGE RANKIN. This appeal has been heard ex parte, there being no appearance on behalf of any respondent. Their Lordships are much indebted to Mr. De Gruyther for the care and candour with which he has explained the considerations arising upon the appeal.
The suit was brought on June 30, 1927, by the Official Receiver of the High Court at Calcutta, who represents the landlords interest in a village called Majhauli. The first defendant, Musammat Ramratan Kuer, was sued on the footing that she had taken a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding in this village by deed dated September 28, 1916. The case made aga
