Skip to content


Lakhpat Singh Vs. Babu Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All156; 40Ind.Cas.35
AppellantLakhpat Singh
RespondentBabu Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xx, rule 14 - pre-emption--decree, conditional upon payment into court, compliance with--mortgage of subject-matter of decree by decree-holder. - - it seems to us absolutely clear that the money must be deemed under the circumstances to be a payment made for and on behalf of the decree-holder, and we are clearly of opinion (assuming that the money was not sufficient and paid in within the time mentioned in the decree) that the terms of the decree were complied with, and the property vested from that time in the decree-holder......the money was accepted by the court without any objection on the ground that it had been paid in by a person not authorized to do so. it seems to us absolutely clear that the money must be deemed under the circumstances to be a payment made for and on behalf of the decree-holder, and we are clearly of opinion (assuming that the money was not sufficient and paid in within the time mentioned in the decree) that the terms of the decree were complied with, and the property vested from that time in the decree-holder. we allow the appeal, set aside the orders of both the courts below and remand the case to the court of first instance with directions to re-admit on its original number and to proceed to deal with the same according to law. the appellant will have his costs in this court and.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff obtained a decree for pre-emption conditional upon his paying into Court within thirty-one days a certain sum mentioned in the decree. The sum mentioned was paid into Court. It is alleged that it was not paid within time. How much foundation there is for this allegation we are not in a position to say. If there is no foundation for it, it is unfortunate that the point should be raised, as it will only lead to loss by the parties. The money, if it be found to be sufficient, is lying idle in Court. The real question which we are called upon to decide is, whether or not the deposit of the money, assuming it to be within time, was in compliance with the terms of the decree. Lakhpat Singh, not having the money himself to deposit, borrowed the money by executing a simple mortgage of the property, the subject-matter of the suit for pre-emption. The mortgage was taken in the name of a minor, the money being provided by the father, one Birbal. Birbal signed the original tender for the deposit of money. The tender named the parties to the pre-emption suit. It named the purpose for which the money had been paid into Court, and in addition to the signature of Birbal, it contained the signature of the Pleader for the decree-holder. The money was accepted by the Court without any objection on the ground that it had been paid in by a person not authorized to do so. It seems to us absolutely clear that the money must be deemed under the circumstances to be a payment made for and on behalf of the decree-holder, and we are clearly of opinion (assuming that the money was not sufficient and paid in within the time mentioned in the decree) that the terms of the decree were complied with, and the property vested from that time in the decree-holder. We allow the appeal, set aside the orders of both the Courts below and remand the case to the Court of first instance with directions to re-admit on its original number and to proceed to deal with the same according to law. The appellant will have his costs in this Court and in the Court below to be paid by the respondents.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //