Modi, J.— The appellant Surajmal and the respondents Bheroolal and Gokulchand are rival pre-emports and obtained a joint decree in a suit for preemption by which the right of the appellant to pre-empt was adjudged superior to that of Behroolal and Gokulchand. By this decree which is dated the 5th May, 1945, the trial court (Hakim of Sambhar) declared that Surajmal appellant do pay a sum of Rs. 850/- in court by or before the 15th June, 1945, whereupon he would be entitled to receive possession of Dhularams house from defendants Nos. 1 to 5 (Ganeshilal and others, vendees. It was further provided by the decree that if Surajmal fails to deposit the amount, (apparently meaning thereby, by or before the 15th June, 1945) then the decree, passed in his favour shall stand cancelled. In that event it was further provided that if Gokulchand etc, should deposit the sum of Rs. 850/- before the 5th July, 1945, in court, they would be entitled to obtain possession of the house. Certain other directions as regards costs were also made in the decree, but with those we are not concerned for the purposes of the present appeal. The appellants case is that he paid the decretal amount (in fact he alleges to have paid a sum of Rs. 1350/- i.e., Rs. 500/- over and above the decretal amount of Rs. 850/- to dissuade the vendees from filing any further appeal) to the vendees out of court on the 11th June, 1950. His case further is that as the civil courts were closed on account of the summer vacation, during the month of June, 1945, he had moved an application before the Hakim Sambhar for certification of this payment on the 2nd July, 1945. A receipt Ex. O.8, dated 11th June, 1945 from the vendees was also filed along with this application. The appellants case further is that the rival pre-emptor Gokulchand had made a compromise with the vendees on behalf of himself and his nephew Bheroolal, on the 9th June, 1945, in which it was stated that the vendees were desirous of filing an appeal from the judgment of the trial court but dispute had been compromised and the vendees had given up their right of appeal inasmuch as Gokulchand had received a sum of Rs. 90/- from them, and they (Gokulchand and Bheroolal) had given up their right of pre-emption and they would not seek execution of the decree in their favour. It was further provided in the compromise that if in the event of Surajmal not depositing the decretal amount, the right of preemption should accrue in their favour, that right should be deemed to have been waived, and that they would in no event exercise the right of pre-emption. It was also mentioned in the compromise that the other decree-holder Bheronlal was not present at the time and, therefore, his signatures could not be obtained but the compromise was being made with his consent and that the sum of Rs. 90/- which had been received from the vendees would be kept half and half by Gokal Chand and Bheronlal. Lastly, it was mentioned that if Bherulal should act in any way in contravention of the terms of this compromise the vendees Madanlal and others would be entitled to recover the cost of the house under pre-emption amounting to Rs. 350C/- along with costs and damages from Gokulchand. This compromise was presented before the Hakim of Sambhar on the 9th June, 1945 and verified by him. It may also be mentioned in the connection that the parties to the compromise namely Madanlal and Gokulchand had also filed an application before the Hakim of Sambhar that as they were required to go out in connection with their service and it was not possible for them to stay at home till July, 1945, the compromise be verified without delay. This application was obviously made to indicate the urgency of the matter as the court was closed for the summer vacation for the month of June. The compromise was accordingly verified by the court on the 9th June, 1915. It is also alleged by Surajmal that a compromise was arrived at between him and the vendees Madanlal and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document