(1.) This is a miscellaneous second appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Gaya in certain execution proceedings. The decree-holder respondents had attached 5 annas 4 pies share in tauzi No. 6903 in village Pakaria. The judgment-debtor applied for valuation giving the valuation at Rs. 6000. The decree-holder, on the other hand, valued the property at Rs. 500. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the case at first instance valued the property at Rs. 1836 and that valuation was affirmed by the learned District Judge. In the proceedings it had been alleged that one Bateshwar Nath Singh acting on behalf of himself and his minor brother Kapildeo Narain Singh had been paid a sum of Rs. 175, and it was alleged that the decree had been satisfied to that extent. The decree-holders were a joint family, and, on their behalf, it was alleged that the receipt of Es, 175 by a junior member of the family, who was neither karta nor an agent of the family, would not operate as a discharge pro tanto of the decree. The Courts below came to the conclusion that the receipt of the money by Bateshwar would operate as a discharge pro tanto of his share of the decretal amount but would not operate as a partial discharge of the shares of the other members of the family.
(2.) The judgment-debtor appealed from the decision of the Subordinate Judge to the Court of the District Judge, and there was a cross-objection by the decree- holders. The appeal was concerned with valuation and the cross-objection with this matter of pro tanto discharge of the decree. As I have stated, the learned District Judge upheld the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of valuation and he was also of opinion that the receipt by Bateshwar of Rs. 175 operated as a pro tanto discharge of his share of the decretal amount. The judgment, debtor has appealed to this Court, and there is a cross-objection by the decree-holders. The appeal is directed to the question of valuation and the cross-objection is confined to the effect of the payment of Rs. 175 to Bateshwar. It will be convenient, in the first place, to deal with the appeal which concerns valuation.
(3.) In support of their contention that the property attached was worth only Rs. 500, the decree-holders put in a sale deed, dated i 17 April 1940, by which certain property in two adjoining tauzis of the same village had been sold for Rs. 1500. The properties consisted of 2 annas 8 pies in one tauzi and 4 annas in another tauzi. The Courts below declined to regard this sale deed as any criterion. The learned District Judge points out that there is nothing to show that the lands were similar to the lands in question in this case and further the sale took place in circumstances in which a fair price is rarely obtained. The decree-holders have not filed a cross-objection on the question of valuation and have accepted the Court's valuation of Rs. 1836. Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha who appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtor appellant at first urged that this sale deed strongly supported his case. It appears that his instructions were to the effect that the sale deed comprised only of 2 annas 8 pies of a tauzi, whereas in fact it comprised two items of property, 2 annas 8 pies in one tauzi and 4 annas in another tauzi. Further, it seems clear that the tauzis which were the subject-matter of this sale deed were more valuable than the tauzi out of which the 5 annas 4 pies was attached in this case. The sale deed, far from assisting the judgment-debtor, goes against him. Fortunately for the appellant the Courts did not accept the sale deed as a good criterion. The weight to be given to such evidence is a matter for the Courts below, and there seems to be no reason to doubt the view of the two Courts.