Satyanarayana Rao, J.†-Two questions have been referred to the Full Bench viz., (i) Whether section 96 of the Transfer of Property Act is retrospective or not and (ii) Whether Munia Goundan v. Ramaswami Chetti1, and Sinnanan Chetty v. Sivakami Ammal2, were rightly decided.

After hearing arguments, we have no doubts about the second question referred to the Full Bench, but the first question, in our opinion, having regard to the conflicting views expressed in different Courts, requires consideration by a fuller Bench. Section 95 of the Transfer of Property Act introduced by amending Art XX of 1929 replaces to some extent the old section 95. Part of old section 95 with modification has been transferred to section 92 first part, i.e., instead of a charge in favour of the redeeming co-mortgagor. Section 92 substitutes in its place a right of subrogation and the redeeming co-mortgagor holds the property subject to the same rights of redemption, foreclosure or sale as the mortgagee, whose mortgage he redeems, may have against the mortgagor or any other mortgagee. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Srinivasulu v. Damodaraswami3, that this section is not retrospective and this view was based partly upon the decision of the House of Lords in Gardner v. Lucas4, and the observations of Varadachariar, J., in Lakshmi Amma v. Sankara Narayana Menon5. The observations of the learned Judge are at pages 365 and 366. The learned judge does not express any definite opinion on the question though it was treated as an opinion against its retrospective operation by the Division Bench. There is an earlier decision of Sundaram Chettiar, J., sitting as a single Judge in Pichaiyappa v. Govindaraju6, also taking the view that section 92 is not retrospective. A Full Bench of this Court in Kanakamma v. Krishnamma7, had to consider the question whether section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was retrospective or not and expressed the view that it was not retrospective dissenting from the view taken by the Allahabad High Court.

To a large extent, the question whether section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act is retrospective or not is connected with the question, whether the other sections 6th March, 1953. of the Transfer of Property Act, newly enacted by the Amending Act, including section 53-A, are retrospective or not. The reason is this. Under the Amending Act XX of 1929, it is expressly provided by section 63 that certain sections in that Act, which correspond to sections 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 53, 56, 58, 63-A, 65-A, 67, 67-A, 68, 69, 69-A, 91, 102, 107, iii-G, 114-A, 119, 129 and 130 of the Amended Act are made expressly not retrospective. But the other sections, which were introduced or amended by this Amending Act, viz., sections 5, 6, 11, 39, 40, 43, 52, 53-A, 55, 59, 59-A, 60, 60-A, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 92, 95, 98, 100, 101, 103, 106, 108 and 129 were not expressly made retrospective. All that is stated in section 63 is that.

“nothing in any other provision of this Act shall render invalid or in any way affect anything already done before the first day of April. 1930, in any proceeding pending in a Court on that date”.

This is construed by the other High Courts as meaning that by necessary intendment the sections other than those specified in section 63 are retrospective except to the extent that, if anything was done before the 1st April, 1930, in any proceeding, pending in a Court on that date, they would not govern such proceeding to that extent. This view found favour with the Allahabad High Court in a later decision in Hira Singh v. Jai Singh1, with the Calcutta High Court in Shamsuddin Bhuya v. Haider AH2, with the Patna High Court in Tika Sao v. Hari Lall3, and with the Bombay High Court in Subraya v. Subraya4. In dealing with the question whether section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is retrospective or not, Leach, C.J., considered the principle of construction, which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document