LAWS(P&H)-1970-12-47

PRITAM SINGH Vs. SANT SINGH

Decided On December 04, 1970
PRITAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
SANT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-pre-emptors Sant Singh and others obtained a decree against the appellants under which they were required to deposit the pre-emption money on or before 30th June, 1969. The amount was, however, deposited on 1st July, 1969, 30th June being the Bank Holiday. Pritam Singh objected that the money having not been deposited within the time allowed by the trial Court, the decree could not be executed. This objection was, however, overruled, and the order of the executing Court, dated 19th December, 1969, having been upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge, Sangrur, on 11th February, 1970, Pritam Singh and others have come up in second appeal.

(2.) The only question that needs consideration is whether the deposit made on 1st July, 1969, constitutes compliance with the decree of the Court under which the respondent-pre-emptors were directed to deposit the pre-emption money on or before 30th June, 1969. The facts, about which there is no dispute, are as follows :

(3.) Mr. Harbans Lal, appearing for the appellant, has vehemently assailed this finding and contended that neither there was any evidence to prove that the decree-holder actually had the money with him on 30.6.69, nor was it ever his case that he tendered it in Court or to the judgment-debtor (vendors) to whom this amount was to be paid. He further argues that the mere fact that the bank was closed on 30th June, 1969, could not serve as condonation of the default or entitle them to make the deposit on the reopening of the bank. It is then urged that the finding of the learned District Judge that the decree-holders had the money with them on 30th June, 1969, is not supported by any evidence, and even if it be accepted as correct, it is of no avail to them as what the law requires is that the amount should not only be ready and in possession of the party concerned, but it must be tendered to the Court or the party to whom it is payable. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decisions of this Court in Kali Charan v. Ravi Datt and others, 1957 59 PunLR 204), and Sheoram v. Jhabar, 1951 AIR(P&H) 309. In the latter case, J.L. Kapur J. (as he then was) observed that proof of the fact that the decree-holder had the money with him at the time of the application made to the Treasury for depositing the money, was not sufficient, and held that what the law required was the tender of the amount, observing as follows :-