Right of Pre-emption and Ex Parte Decrees: Analysis of Vijay Singh vs. Shanti Devi

The case of Vijay Singh vs. Shanti Devi addresses an important legal question regarding the right of pre-emption and the effect of setting aside an ex parte decree. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether an ex parte decree, later set aside, could be considered a decree of the court of first instance for determining the rights of the parties. The decision in this case has significant implications for pre-emption laws and procedural justice in civil cases.

The dispute began when Roop Chand sold a piece of land to Shanti Devi. Vijay Singh, the appellant, who was a co-sharer with Roop Chand, filed a suit for possession on the basis of his right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The case was complicated by an amendment to the law during the pendency of the litigation, which removed the right of pre-emption for co-sharers.

Background of the Case

The timeline of events is crucial in understanding the legal complexities involved:

• On 6th November 1989, Vijay Singh filed a suit for pre-emption.
• On 6th April 1990, Shanti Devi was proceeded against ex parte.
• On 10th April 1990, an ex parte decree was passed in favor of Vijay Singh.
• On 7th June 1990, Vijay Singh took possession of the land through execution proceedings.
• On the same day, Shanti Devi filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside the decree.
• On 4th October 1993, the trial court dismissed Shanti Devi’s application.
• On 28th August 1998, the appellate court set aside the ex parte decree.
• In 1995, during the pendency of the appeal, the State of Haryana amended the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, removing the right of pre-emption for co-sharers.
• On 27th November 1999, the trial court, after retrial, dismissed Vijay Singh’s suit.
• The appellate court and the High Court upheld the dismissal.

Legal Issues

The key legal question in this case was:

• What is the effect of setting aside an ex parte decree on the rights of the parties?
• Should an ex parte decree, once set aside, be treated as a decree of the court of first instance?
• Did the amendment to the law apply retrospectively to affect pre-existing rights?

Arguments by the Appellant (Vijay Singh)

The appellant, Vijay Singh, argued:

• His right of pre-emption was valid as of the date of the original ex parte decree on 10th April 1990.
• The setting aside of the ex parte decree should not erase the legal rights that had accrued to him.
• As per the decision in Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar, the right of pre-emption must exist on the date of sale, filing of the suit, and decree by the court of first instance.
• The amendment in 1995 should not apply retrospectively to take away his pre-existing right.

Arguments by the Respondent (Shanti Devi)

Shanti Devi contended:

• She had never been served in the original suit and came to know about the proceedings only after possession was taken from her.
• The ex parte decree was wrongly passed and was rightly set aside by the appellate court.
• By the time the case was retried, the law had changed, and Vijay Singh no longer had a right of pre-emption.
• Since the decree on 27th November 1999 was the only valid decree, the rights of the parties should be governed by the law as it stood on that date.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles in detail. The Court observed:

‘An ex parte decree is a valid decree until set aside. However, once it is set aside, the legal effect is that it ceases to exist and the parties are restored to their original position.’

The Court further held:

‘The decree that must be considered for deciding the rights of the parties is the decree passed after retrial, not the one that was set aside.’

The Court also referred to the judgment in Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar, which laid down the principle that a pre-emptor must have the right to pre-empt on:

• The date of sale
• The date of filing of the suit
• The date of the decree of the court of first instance

The Court noted that while Vijay Singh had the right of pre-emption on the first two dates, he did not have it on the date of the decree after retrial. Since the law had changed in 1995, he had no subsisting right when the final decree was passed in 1999.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the suit, ruling that:

• The setting aside of the ex parte decree restored the parties to their original position.
• The final decree of 27th November 1999, and not the ex parte decree of 1990, was the relevant decree.
• Since the appellant had no right of pre-emption in 1999, his suit was rightly dismissed.
• The doctrine of restitution applied, meaning Shanti Devi was entitled to retain the property.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

• It clarifies that once an ex parte decree is set aside, it ceases to have any legal effect.
• It reaffirms the principle that legal rights must be determined as of the date of the final decree.
• It upholds the legislative intent behind removing the right of pre-emption for co-sharers.
• It prevents litigants from relying on interim decrees to claim substantive rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Singh vs. Shanti Devi underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the principle that an ex parte decree, once set aside, loses all legal effect. It also affirms that changes in law apply to ongoing cases and that a plaintiff cannot claim rights that no longer exist at the time of the final decree. This case serves as an important precedent in matters of pre-emption and the effect of procedural rulings on substantive rights.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vijay Singh vs Shanti Devi & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-09-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category