An agreement to sell property does not amount to a surrender of a lease under Section 111 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act.

C. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment as they arise out of the same order.

( 2 ) THE facts giving arise to these appeals may be stated within a narrow compass as the facts on which the decision of these appeals turn are not in dispute,

( 3 ) THE appellant Banshilal filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the respondent Noor Mohammad and one Heera-lal in the Court of Civil Judge, bhilwara which was dismissed on 8-2-1967. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara Banshilal filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Bhilwara. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent Noor Mohammad submitted the alleged written agreement between the parties Ex. A1 dated 11-9-1967 and by an application prayed that the appeal be dismissed. This application was opposed by the appellant Banshilal on the ground that the suit had not been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, and it was therefore prayed that the appeal may be decided on merits. The learned District Judge, however, by his order dated 21-41969 came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between banshilal and Noor Mohammad had come to an end and thus the suit had been adjusted wholly by a lawful agreement between the parties. In this view of the matter the plaintiffs appeal was dismiss-ed.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff Banshilal has therefore filed this second appeal from the judgment and decree by which his appeal before the District Judge had been dismissed, and has also filed Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (m), C. P. C. , from the order recording the compromise.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent Noor Mohammad has raised a preliminary objection regarding the second appeal No. 353/1969 that the appeal is not within limitation, and that it is also not maintainable. His objection is that the appellant is only entitled to exclude the time required for obtaining copy of the judgment under appeal and not the time required for obtaining a copy of the decree separately. It may be observed that the judgment of the lower Court was announced on 21-4-1969. The appellant applied for a copy of the judgment on 224-1969 and was supplied the same on 30-4-1969. Thus he was entitled to exclude 9 days for obtaining copy of the judgment. He applied for copy of the decree separately on 18-7-69, and was supplied the same on 25-7-1969. Thus two separate applications were made for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree, and the period required lor obtaining the same does not overlap each other. " Both the applications for the copies of the judgment as well as the decree were made within the period of 90 days prescribed for presentation of the appeal. In my opinion he is clearly entitled to exclude the whole period that was required for obtaining the copy of the judgment as well as the copy of the decree in the present case. It is not disputed that if time required for obtaining copies of the judgment as well as the decree is excluded, the appeal would be within time. Consequently I overrule the preliminary objection on the ground of limitation and hold that the appeal has been filed within time.

( 6 ) AS regards the maintainability of the second appeal the objection of the learned counsel is that the miscellaneous appeal directing against the order recording the compromise under Order 43, Rule 1 (m), C. P. C. , deserves to be dismissed, as the copy of the udgment of the trial Court has not been filed within limitation in that appeal, and if that appeal is dismissed then this second appeal would not be maintainable. I may observe here that apart from the question whether the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant is defective, the fact remains that the second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court by which the plaintiffs appeal was dismissed. It appears that the