1. This civil second appeal by the plaintiffs/Appellants is against the decision dated 21-12-1976 passed by District Judge, Baramulla, in an appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1975 passed by Sub-Judge, Baramulla, decreeing the suit under Right of Prior Purchase Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are: that in exercise of right of prior purchase, the appellants/plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants/respondents for possession of 19 marlas of land under survey No : 366 khewat No 2 situated at village Tangmulla Tehsil Sopore. The trial court Sub Judge, Baramulla decreed the suit with condition to the appellants/plaintiffs to deposit purchase money ascertained during trial by 1-11-1975, which had been disputed by the appellants. The appellants, filed civil first appeal before the District Judge, Baramulla on the sole point on wrong determination of purchase money. The District Judge, Baramulla, vide his judgment indicated dismissed the appeal and it is against this judgment and decree the plaintiffs/appellants have come in second appeal before this court agitating two points: firstly

i) wrongly confirming finding of the trial court regarding market value of the subject matter of the suit, and Secondly

ii) non-extension of time to deposit the purchase money after the appeal under judgment impugned was disposed.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Mr. Malik, at this stage, pressed this appeal on the sole point that while dismissing the appeal, the District Judge, Baramulla had failed to extend time for depositing the purchase money as the time allowed by the trial court had expired due to appeal, the District Judge while entertaining the appeal having granted stay operated for all purposes including deposit of consideration money ordered by the decretal court within the specified period. He argued that the District Judge was bound to extend the time while disposing the appeal what has not been done, therefore, an error committed by the lower appellate court.

3. Mr. Bhat, appearing for the respondents on the other hand argued that for non-compliance of direction to deposit the purchase money in accordance with order 20 Rule 14 CPC, the plaintiffs suit automatically dismissed despite appeal, the condition of decree to deposit purchase money within the specified period will remain in tact and extension in time for depositing the same will amount to alteration of the decree against which appeal has been dismissed by the lower appellate court, as argued by counsel for the appellants, is not warranted. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.

4. The point involved in this appeal, is whether the lower appellate court had competence to extend the time fixed by the trial court to deposit the purchase money by the plaintiffs/appellants when stay of decree was granted and if such extension violates order 20 R. 14 CPC which for appreciation of the point is reproduced hereunder: -

14. (1) where the court decrees a claim to right of prior purchase in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase-money has not been paid into court, the decree shall-

(a) specify a day on or before which the purchase money shall be so paid, and

(b) direct that on payment into Court of such purchase money, together with the costs (if any) decreed against the plaintiff, on or before the day referred to in clause (a), the defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, whose title thereto shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment, but that, if the purchase-money and the costs (if any) or not so paid, the suit shall be dismissed with costs."

Clause (a) to the rule indicated empowers the court on passing the decree for fixing a specified period to deposit purchase money while clause (b) empowers the court on payment or depositing of such purchase money direct the delivery of possession of the property preempted to plaintiffs and incase the purc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document