SULLEH SINGH & ORS. versus SOHAN LAL & ANR.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 02-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

598 
A 
SULLEH SINGH .& ORS. 
v 
A 
SOHAN LAL & ANR. 
September 2, 1975 
• 
[A. N. RAY, CJ., K. K. MATHEW ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
B 
' .. 
Code of Civil Procedure, Act V of 1908, Order 20, Ruic 14--Pre-e111ptio11-
Pre-e111ptor's suit, if stood disn1iss.ed on his ft~ilure to depolit pre-emption price 
wit}1in the tinie fixed by Trial Court. 
-...' 
The vendors sold the suit land to the appellants (vendces) by a regis.tered 
·deed of sale for R5. 43,000/-. 
The respondents ftled the suit for poi;session 
·.by pre-emption ot the land in payment of Rs. 30,000/- on the allegations that 
the respondents were on the date of' sale tenant5 of.the-land under the vendors. 
They also alleged that the sale took place for Rs. 30,000/- only and the re-
maining amount wa9 fictitiollsly mentioned in the deeJ of sale. 
The suit wu.s 
-dismissed on the ground that one suit on behalf of the four plaintiffs. who 
were tenants of different parts of the ]and, was not mairi.tainable. 
On uppetll 
the suit- was remanded for re-trial. 
At the trial on remand, two plaintiffs 
withdrew_ from the suit. 
~fhe trial court directed the remaining two plaintifl's-
respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi to deposit Rs. 6,300/ _ and Rs. S,670/- res-
pectively on or before 1 April, 1969. less. 1 /Sth of the pre-en1ption amount 
-already 
deposited 
by 
then1. 
The 
Trial Court 
gave the respondent 
Sohan Lal a decree for possession by pre-emption in respect of Killa No~. 14/1 
17 and 18/ 1 of Rectangle 37. 'fhe plaintiffs-re~pondents, aggrieved by .the order, 
filed an appeal alleging that the decree should have been passed for the whole 
of the land because the 
re~pondent Sohan La] was also a tenant of Kilb, 
No. 24 of Rectangle 37 under the vendors. 
On 29 July. 1969, the Addil.ional 
District Judge passed a decree for posses.'iion by pre-emption in favour 
of 
Tespondent Sohan Lal of Killa No. 
24 of 
Rectangle 37 
on 
payment 
of 
Rs. 9,100/- and he was also directed to deposit thi<> amount on or before 20 
August, 1969. 
The decree in favour of Nathi was n1aintained without charge. 
The ·appellants filed an appeal before the Hi'gh Court and it was contended 
before the High Court that respondents did not deposit the decretal amount 
by 1 April, 1969 as directed by the Trial Cotut and, therefore. the suit -was 
liable to be dismissed under Order 20 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Proce .. 
<lure. 
The High Court accepted the appeal of the appellants against the plain-
tiff 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 J(illa and directed that the amount would be R1. 9,100/-. 
the respondent was to comply with the appellate decree and -not the decree of 
the Trial Coun. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
c 
D 
E 
t 
F 
HELD : ( 1) The direction'°' given by the Trial Court are n1andato(y 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 side• and 
they are so conditioned that performance by one is conditional on perfonnan.:e 
G 
i. 
hy the other. 
[600E-F, Gl 
Pla~uba Appa v. 1Vanule-y reported in A.LR. 1954 S.C. 50 and Do11ara_\'a 
s/o Kf'sl1av Tawalay v. Sludkh Maliboob Shaildi Ali and Anr. 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
514 rehed on. 
t 
(il) It is only if the plaintiffs-respondents had obtained another order fron1 
f 
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-
II 
en1ptors. Jhe IIigh Court should have allowed the appeUants' appeal and not ma<le 
any di~tinction in dismissing plaintiff-respondent Nathi's suit and 
allowing 
plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal any extension of time to make the payment. 
[601F-G] 
~
' 
• 
• 
A 
B 
SULLEH SINGH V. SORAN J:iAL (Ray, C.J.) 
5 99 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 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 R.S.A. No . 
1469 of 1969. 
0. P. Sharma for the appellant. 
R N. Dikshit for Respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C.J.-This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 
2 May, 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
C 
The appellants are vendees of the land in suit. The vendors sold 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the land to the appellants for Rs.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.