JIT SINGH Vs. RAM MURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, dated October 28, 1970, who modified the decree of the trial Court by which the suit had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of this appeal are that the property in dispute was sold by Chanchal Gir to the defendants for an amount of Rs. 14,000/- by a sale deed dated August 1, 1966, registered on August 29, 1966. The plaintiff instituted a suit for possession by pre-emption on the ground that he was the grandson of Chanchal Gir and had, therefore, a superior right of pre-emption against the defendants who were not related to the vendor. The defendants contested the suit and denied the allegations of the plaintiff. Inter alia, it was pleaded that he had no superior right of pre-emption. Several other pleas were raised by the parties but they were not relevant for the decision of this appeal. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had a superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, it decreed the suit on payment of Rs. 11,335/- to the vendees. It was further directed that the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the property in dispute on payment of Rs. 3262.50 nP. to the mortgagees as mortgage amount in addition to the aforesaid amount to the vendees. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, who modified the decree and held that the plaintiff would deposit an amount of Rs. 12,622.50 nP. as pre-emption money after deducting the amount of one-fifth of the sale price already deposited by him in the trial Court by December 26, 1970. He did not pass any order regarding payment of any mortgage money to the remaining mortgagees. The defendants having felt aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge have come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel, for the appellants is that the trial Court directed that an amount of Rs. 11,335/- should be paid to the vendees by December 30, 1969, and in case he failed to do so, the suit shall stand dismissed. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid direction had not been complied with as the pre-emptor had no money. In the circumstances, the suit had been dismissed by the trial Court and the vendees could not file an appeal against that decree. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the direction given by the trial Court was erroneous and according to the provisions of rule 14 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a direction should have been given by it that the amount should be paid in Court on or before December 30, 1969. According to the learned counsel instead of giving the aforesaid direction, the Court stated that the amount be paid to the vendees which he could not do as the vendees were not available. He, therefore, had to go up in appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge and that his order is justified.