RAM SINGH Vs. GITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for determination in the present execution second appeal is as to whether the decree holder had complied with the terms pertaining to the payment of pre-emption money incorporated in the decree.

(2.) The respondent-decree holder Gita Ram successfully pre-empted the sale in question and obtained a decree for possession on payment of Rs. 217/- to the vendee-judgment-debtor. The respondent-decree-holder had already deposited 1/5th of the said amount while the balance, that is, Rs. 177/- was deposited in the treasury on the 14th of December, 1966 for payment to the judgment-debtor.

(3.) On 9th December, 1968 the present application raising objections and praying for the dismissal of the suit, was filed by the appellant judgment-debtor. It was claimed therein that the decree holder did not deposit the balance pre-emption money by 15th of December, 1966 the date envisaged in the decree and hence the suit be dismissed and the symbolical possession obtained by the decree-holder of the land in dispute be restored to him (judgment-holder). The executing Court dismissed the application holding that the amount in question was to be deposited in the treasury under the orders of the Court and merely envisaged the payment of the said amount to the vendee-judgment debtor by 15th of December, 1966, so there had been sufficient compliance with the said decree by the decree-holder, although the amount in question was not deposited in the treasury under the specific orders of the Court. It was observed by the executing Court after perusal of the record that it was when the decree-holder sought to obtain warrant of possession that it came to light that he had not deposited the money in the treasury under the orders of the Court and he then made an application on 14th of March, 1967, attaching therewith the treasury challan and thereafter in 28th of March 1968, the executing Court issued warrant of possession. An appeal against the order of the executing Court to Additional District Judge, Ambala also failed. The judgment debtor canvassed before the first appellate Court the validity of the order dated 28th of March, 1968, also. The learned Additional District Judge, however, ruled out the objection to the validity of the said order on the grounds, firstly, that it was not challenged before the executing Court and secondly, a copy of the said order had not been placed on the record. The learned Additional District Judge, also observed that even the copy of the decree, the non-compliance of which by the decree-holder had complained against by the judgment-debtor, also had been placed on the record and so it was not possible to find out as to what where the precise terms of the decree.