Civil Appeal No 496 of 1974
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 2nd May 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No 1469 of 1969
O P Sharma for the appellant
R N Dikshit for Respondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 2 May 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
The appellants are venders of the land in suit
The vendors sold the land to the appellants for Rs 43000 on 26 August 1965
The transaction was by registered deed of sale
The respondents filed this suit for possession by pre emption of the land in payment of Rs 30000 on allegations that the respondents were on the date of sale tenants of the land under the vendors
The respondents alleged that their right of pre emotion was superior to that of the vendees
They also alleged that the sale took place for Rs 30000 only and the remaining was fictitiously mentioned in the deed of sale
The suit was dismissed on the ground that one suit on behalf of the four plaintiffs who were tenants of different parts of the land was not maintainable
On appeal the suit was remanded for re trial
At the trial on remand two plaintiffs withdrew from the suit
The trial court directed the remaining two plaintiffs respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi to deposit Rs 6300 and Rs 5670  respectively on or before 1 April 1969 less 15th of the pre emotion amount already deposited by them
The Trial Court gave the respondent Sohan Lal a decree for possession by pre emotion in respect of Killa Nos
17 and 181 of Rectangle 37
The plaintiffs respondents aggrieved by the order
filed an appeal alleging that the respondent Sohan Lal was a tenant of Killa No 24 under the vendors and the decree should have been passed in their favor for the whole of the land and that decree should have been passed in favour of Sohan Lal in respect of Killa No 24 of Rectangle 37
The other ground in the appeal was that the decree should have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs respondents for whole of the land
The Additional District Judge on 29 July 1969 passed a decree for
possession by pre emotion in favour of respondent Sohan Lal on payment of Rs 9100 and he was directed to deposit this amount in Court on or before 20 August 1969
The Addition District Judge passed a decree for possession by pre emption in favour of respondent Sohan Lal of Killa No 24 of Rectangle 37
The decree in favour the respondent Nathi was maintained without change
Thereafter the appellants preferred an appeal in the High Court alleging that the decision that plaintiff respondent Sohan Lal was also a 600 tenant of Killa No 24 was incorrect and should be set aside and the decree of the Trial Court should be restored
The appellants also prayed that the decree in favour of the two plaintiffs respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi were liable to be set aside
The appellants contended before the High Court that respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi did not deposit the decretal amount by 1 April 1969 as directed by the Trial Court and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed under the provisions contained in order 20 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The other contention of the appellants before the High Court was that the plaintiff respondent Sohan Lal should not have been granted pre emption rights in respect of Killa No 24
The High Court on 2 May 1973 accepted the appeal of the appellants against the plaintiff Nathi and dismissed the appeal against the plaintiff respondent Sohan Lal
The High Court said that since the lower appellate court granted Mohan Lal decree for one more Killa and directed that the amount would be Rs 9100  the respondent was to comply with the appellate decree and not the decree of the Trial Court
The appellants contended that neither Sohan Lal nor Nathi deposited the amount in accordance with the decree of the Trial Court on or before l April 1969 and the suit should have been dismissed on that ground alone and the appeal should have been allowed
The appellants contended that the lower appellate court had no power and jurisdiction to give further time to Sohan Lal to deposit the preemption amount by an extended date
This Court in Naguba Appa vs Namdev1 held that the directions given by the Trial Court are mandatory under the provisions contained in order 20 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure
This Court in Naguba Appa s case supra said that mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the decree of the Trial Court and unless that decree is altered in any manner by the Court of Appeal the pre emptor is bound to comply with that direction 
In Dattaraya so Keshav Tawalay vs Shaikh Mahboob Shaikh Ali  Anr2 this Court said that a decree in terms of order 20 Rule 14 imposes obligations on both sides and they are so conditioned that performance by one is conditional on performance by the other
To illustrate if the defendants by obtaining the stay order from the High Court relieve themselves of the obligation to deliver possession of the properties the plaintiff decree holder must also be deemed thereby to be relieved of the necessity of depositing the money so long as the stay order continues
In the present case the lower appellate court did not grant any stay to the plaintiffs respondents
In view of the fact that the plaintiffs respondents did not deposit the amount as directed by the Trial Court 1 AIR 1954 SC 50
2  601 on or before 1 April 1969 it became mandatory on the lower appellate court by reason of the ruling of this Court in Naguba Appa s case supra to dismiss the suit
The observations of this Court in Naguba Appa s case supra that the pre emptor is bound to comply with the directions of the Trial Judge unless that decree is altered in any manner by a Court of Appeal do not mean that where the deposit is not made in accordance with the directions of the Trial Court the appellate court can extend the time for payment
Thereafter the lower appellate court was in error in extending the time for payment till 2 
August 1969
In Naguba Appa s case the pre emption money was not deposited within the time fixed in the decree
The pre emptor made an application to the Court for making the deposit without disclosing that the time fixed by the decree had elapsed
The application was allowed The defendant when apprised of the situation made an application to the Court to the effect that the plaintiff s suit stood dismissed on account of his failure in making the deposit in time
The Trial Judge held that the pre emption money not having been paid within the time fixed in the decree the suit stood dismissed
On appeal the decision was set aside
On second appeal it was restored and it was held that the suit stood dismissed under order 20 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code
An appeal was preferred against the judgment of the High Court this Court Held that the High Court was right in holding that the pre emptor s suit stood dismissed by reason of his default in not depositing the pre emption price within the time fixed in the Trial Court s decree
The contention of the appellants that the lower appellate court was wrong in extending the time for payment is correct because the failure of the plaintiffs respondents to deposit the amount in terms of the Trial Court s decree would result in pre emptor s  suit standing dismissed by reason of their default in not depositing the pre emption price
The contention of the appellants that the High Court was wrong in not setting aside the order of extension of time passes by the lower appellate court is correct
It is only if the plaintiffs respondents had paid the decretal amount within the time granted by the Trial Court or if the plaintiffs respondents had obtained another order from the lower appellate Court granting any order of stay that the lower appellate court might have considered the passing of appropriate order in favour of pre emptors
The High Court should have allowed the appellant s  appeal and not made any distinction in dismissing plaintiff respondent Nathi s suit and allowing plaintiff respondent Sohan Lal any extension of time to make the payment
Further it appears that the plaintiff respondent Sohan Lal did not pay the amount
For these reasons the appeal is accepted
Suit of the plaintiffs respondents is dismissed
The appellants are entitled to costs
VMKAppeal allowed


Summary:
The vendors sold the suit landto the appellants vendees by a registered deed of sale for Rs 43000 
The  respondents filed the suit for possession by pre emption of the land in payment of Rs 30000 on the allegations that the respondents were on the date of sale tenants of the land under the vendors
I They also alleged that the sale took place for Rs 30000 only and the re maining amount was fictitiously mentioned in the deed of sale
The suit was  dismissed on the ground that one suit on behalf of the four plaintiffs who were tenants of different parts of the land was not maintainable
On appeal the suit was remanded for re trial
At the trial on remand two plaintiffs withdrew from the suit
The trial court directed the remaining two plaintiffs respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi to deposit Rs 6300_ and Rs 5670 respectively on or before 1 April 1969 less 15th of the pre emption amount already deposited by them
The Trial Court gave the respondent Sohan Lal a decree for possession by pre emption in respect of Killa Nos
141 
17 and 181 of Rectangle 37
The plaintiffs respondents aggrieved by the order filed an appeal alleging that the decree should have been Passed for the whole of the land because the respondent Sohan Lal was also a tenant of Killa  No
24 of Rectangle 37 under the vendors
On 29 July 1969
the Additional District Judge passed a decree for possession by pre emption in favour of respondent Sohan Lal of Killa No 24 of Rectangle 37 on payment of Rs 9100 and he was also directed to deposit this amount on or before 20 August 1969
The decree in favour of Nathi was maintained without charge
The appellants filed an appeal before the High Court and it was contended before the High Court that respondents did not deposit the decretal amount by l April 1969 as directed by the Trial Court and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed under order 20 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The High Court accepted the appeal of the appellants against the plaintiff Nathi and dismissed the appeal against the plaintiff respondent Sohan Lal
The High Court said that since the lower appellate court granted Sohan Lal decree for one more Killa and directed that the amount would be Rs 9100 
the respondent was to comply with the appellate decree and not the decree of the Trial Court
Allowing the appeal by special leave  HELD 1 The directions given by the Trial Court are mandatory under the provisions contained in order 20 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure
A decree in terms of order 20 Rule 14 imposes obligations on both sides and they are so conditioned that performance by one is conditional on performance bt the other
600E F G
Naguba Appa vs Namdey reported in AIR l 954 SC 50 and Dattaraya So Keshav Tawalay vs Shaikh Ali and Anr1969 2 SCR 514 relied on
ii It is only if the plaintiffs respondents had obtained another order from the lower appellate Court granting any order of stay that the lower appellate court might have considered the passing of appropriate order in favour of pre emptors
The High Court should have allowed the appellants  appeal and not made any distinction in dismissing plaintiffs respondent Nathi s suit and allowing Plaintiff respondent Sohan Lal any extension of time to make the payment
601F G 599