MOHINDER SINGH Vs. KEHR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application from the order, dated July 23, 1963, of Subordinate Judge First Class, Sangrur, by Mohinder Singh minor, in which order the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that there is no pre-emption decree in favour of Kehar Singh, respondent, who was pre-emptor in the pre-emption suit, and against Mohinder Singh, applicant and his brothers Harnek Singh, Hamir Singh and Jangir Singh, respondents, who were the vendees. The only other party to this application is Sher Singh respondent, who was the vendor. In consequence the learned trial Judge has ordered the vendees to pay back the amount of the decree leaving them to regain possession of the land which has passed under the decree to the pre-emptor.

(2.) Sale of his land by the vendor was made for a consideration of Rs. 9,180/- in favour of the vendees. The sale was pre-empted by the pre-emptor in a pre-emption suit instituted by him on June 13, 1961. He is said to have deposited on June 15, 1961, under Section 2 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, one-fifth of the value of the land sold, that is to say Rs. 1,800/-. A decree was obtained by him on March 19, 1962, in these terms - "It is ordered that a decree for possession by means of pre-emption of the land in suit is hereby, passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the vendees-defendants subject to payment to deposit of Rs. 9,180/- less the amount already deposited by him, on or before 19th June, 1962. In case the plaintiff fails to pay or deposit the said amount within the prescribed period this suit shall stand dismissed.' The pre-emptor (plaintiff) made the payment under this decree of the balance amount of Rs. 7,380/- on June 15, 1962, some three days before the date stated in the decree for such payment as June 19, 1962. Apparently the condition of the decree was complied with and the suit of the pre-emptor stood decreed. In consequence, the vendees withdrew the amount deposited by the pre-emptor, and in his turn the pre-emptor obtained possession of the land under the decree. The parties did not move in the matter thereafter.

(3.) Subsequently, in a departmental inquiry it was discovered that the pre-emptor had made payment of one-fifth of the value of the land, that is to say Rs. 1,800/- to the Nazir of the Court, obtaining a receipt in that respect from him, but that the Nazir had misappropriated that amount and not deposited it in the treasury. This was sometime after the decree had been fully satisfied in the sense that the pre-emptor had obtained possession of the land under the pre-emption decree and the vendees had withdrawn the amount deposited by the pre-emptor. It is on that the learned trial judge has proceeded to come to the conclusion that on June 19, 1962, the pre-emptor's suit stood dismissal. The reason given by him is that one fifth of the value of the land in question was not deposited by the pre-emptor in the terms of Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'. In the wake of this finding the learned Judge has directed the vendees to pay back into Court the amount withdrawn by them in the suit between the parties, leaving them to obtain possession of the land from the pre-emptor. It is one of the vendees, who is a minor, who has come in revision against that order. It appears that Sadhu Singh, who is the guardian of the minor, has been given notice to deposit back the amount in Court and, while this is not quite clear, it seems probable that the notice has been given to him because he must have been representing all the vendees in the pre-emption suit as defendants. The fact that only one of the vendees, who is a minor, has filed this revision application will, however, not make any substantial difference to the conclusion that is to be reached in this case.