MP HC: Policy of First Come, First Serve is Inherently Flawed  ||  Bombay HC: Arbitration Clause Giving Unilateral Power Does Not Render the Agreement Invalid  ||  Madras HC: Taxpayer Not Responding to Notices Should be Sent Reminder through RPAD  ||  Madras HC: Taxpayer Not Responding to Notices Should be Sent Reminder through RPAD  ||  Bombay HC: There is Prohibition Only on "Talaq-e-biddat" and Not on "Talaq-e-Ahsan"  ||  Bombay HC: Government Allottee Lacking Legal Occupation Can’t be Considered ‘Deemed Tenant’  ||  AP HC: If a “Necessary Party” is Not Impleaded, the Suit Itself is Liable to be Dismissed  ||  Delhi HC: No Affect on Charitable Trust’s Status for Making Payments for Services by Related Party  ||  Bombay HC Directs State Govt. to Upload State's Prison & Police Manual on Internet  ||  Delhi HC: If Use of Smoke Cannister a Terrorist Act then Every Holi & IPL Match Will Attract UAPA    

Zakir Hussain and Ors. Vs. Krishan Lal - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (24 Sep 2018)

When a legislative intent is clear from the language of provision, Court should give effect to it

MANU/JK/0753/2018

Property

The background facts of the case are that, the Respondent filed a Civil Suit for possession by enforcement of the right of prior purchase against the Appellants herein. The suit was contested by the Appellants and it ultimately came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The Respondent assailed the judgment before the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, and the learned District Judge vide an order remanded the matter to the learned Sub Judge.

Aggrieved of the order of the remand, the Appellants have challenged its vires on the grounds, that the same is contrary to the settled law of the land. The Principal District Judge has held that, the communication of the intended price at which the sale was offered to the Respondents has not been communicated to the Respondents herein and therefore, it goes to the very root of the stand of the Appellant No. 7, that, he had offered to sell the property initially to the plaintiff, who had shown his reluctance and had practically denied to purchase the same.

Section 18 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act ("the Act"), does not defeat the right of prior purchase under the doctrine of estoppel and the other relevant principles relating to estoppel, as are governed under the Evidence Act. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is lucid and clear. It is based on the law and the logic. In the case of B. Premanand and Others v. Mohan Kokal and Others, it has been held by the Apex Court that, while interpreting the provisions of the statute when a legislative intent is clear from the language, the court should give effect to it. Further, in the case of "Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others", it has been held that where the words of the statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule.

The aforesaid enunciations of law, crystallize that when the language of the statute is clear it has to be understood and interpreted by adherence to that mode and it cannot be departed from or tinkered with. Therefore, the trial Court had to understand the import of the application of Section 18 of the Act to the facts and circumstances of the case in line and in tune with what has been provided and postulated therein and it could not have been laid to rest. A narrow or technical interpretation cannot be given to Section 18 of the Act by doing violence to the language incorporated in it. Thus, there seems to be no error in the order impugned, as a consequence of which, the appeal is dismissed and the order impugned is upheld.

Relevant : B. Premanand and Others v. Mohan Kokal and Others reported in MANU/SC/0249/2011 : 2011 SCCR 392, "Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others" reported in MANU/SC/5456/2006 : 2007 SCCR 6

Tags : PRIOR PURCHASE   RIGHT   STATUTE   INTERPRETATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved