JOGINDER SINGH Vs. ISHAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, at Ropar, dated April 5, 1972, who affirmed the judgment of the Executing Court by which the objection petition of the defendant-judgment-debtors was dismissed.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that a decree for possession by pre-emption was passed in favour of Ishar Kaur, respondent of land measuring 54 kanals and 10 marlas situated in village Manpur, district Ropar, on payment of Rs. 13,000/- to the vendee-appellants. The trial Court had passed the decree on August 20, 1970, in which it was ordered that she was to pay an amount of Rs. 13,000/- (less any amount already deposited against one-fifth of the sale price) on or before October 7, 1970, and in case of default in payment within the stipulated period, the suit would stand dismissed. An appeal against that decree was also dismissed by the first appellate Court. The respondent started execution of the decree before the Executing Court whereupon the Court issued warrants for delivery of possession of the land in dispute. An objection petition was filed under Sections 47 and 151 and rule 29 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by Darbara Singh and Bhajan Singh wherein it was stated that the respondent had not deposited the full amount of Rs. 13,000/- and, therefore, she was not entitled to the possession of the property in dispute. In reply, the respondent stated that her suit had been dismissed originally with costs by the trial Court and the appeal was also dismissed by the first appellate Court against that decree. In second appeal, the High Court remanded the case to the trial Court. The appellants after the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court executed the decree and recovered the costs amounting to Rs. 144.12 paise from the amount lying in Court as one-fifth of the sale money, though they were not entitled to recover that amount. It is stated by her that she had deposited the entire amount of Rs. 13,000/- and complied with the terms of the decree in toto.

(3.) The facts of the case are not disputed by the parties. The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the order of the trial Court regarding the deposit of Rs. 13,000/- has been complied with in spite of the fact that an amount of Rs. 144.12 paise had been paid to the appellants, out of the one-fifth money deposited in the Court and to which, they were not entitled. The Executing Court came to the conclusion that the amount had been deposited in accordance with the decree of the Court. The judgment-debtors filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who affirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The appellants having felt aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge have come up in appeal to this Court.