HAZARA SINGH, ETC. Vs. JEWAN SINGH, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of a suit for possession by way of pre -emption instituted by the Plaintiff -Appellants.

(2.) TO appreciate the points urged by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, a few salient features of the case may be noticed at this stage. On 23rd March, 1964, the Plaintiff -Appellants instituted the suit for possession of the land in dispute by way of pre -emption and on that very day, the trial Court passed an order requiring the Plaintiffs to deposit zare -panjam by the stipulated date. The said order of the trial Court is as under - -

(3.) BEFORE me also, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Appellants made a reference to the above -quoted observations of Passey, J. I am afraid, these observations can be of no help to the Appellants because in the present case the dispute is not that the Plaintiffs did not deposit the correct amount within the stipulated time and that the mistake on his part occurred as a result of the Court not specifying the probable value of the suit property. In a situation of this nature where the Court does not specify the probable value, then later on it cannot come round and say that the Plaintiff has not deposited the correct amount, because by its not specifying the probable value of the property involved in the case, the Court by implication leaves it to the discretion of the Plaintiff to decide the probable value of the suit property himself and deposit one -fifth of the said amount; but where the Plaintiff does not deposit one -fifth of either the probable value that he himself fixes or the value mentioned in the sale -deed within the stipulated time, then he cannot ascribe this mistake on his part to the Courts not specifying the probable value.