P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court are as follows:
(2.) THE sale of the agricultural land in dispute led to two pre -emption suits - - (1) by Natha Singh, Appellant, and (2) by Narinder Singh, Respondent. On 1 -11 -1957 a compromise was effected between the parties and on the same day a decree was passed by the trial Court in terms thereof. According to this decree Narinder Singh, who had a superior right of pre -emption, was given the right of possession of this land on payment of Rs. 2,000/ -, the amount of the purchase money, to the vendees by 2 -12 -1957. In case of default, his suit for possession was liable to be dismissed and Natha Singh, Appellant, was allowed to pay this amount by 2 -1 -1958. In case he also did not pay this amount within the stipulated period, his suit was also deemed to have been dismissed. It is common ground that Narinder Singh did not deposit the required amount by 2 -12 -1957. Natha Singh, however, deposited the same in Court on 2 -12 -1957. On 6 -12 -1957, Narinder Singh filed in Court a receipt dated 26 -11 -57, showing that Rs. 2,000/ - had been paid to the vendees. On the same day, the Executing Court recorded a joint statement of the vendees about the payment of this amount and attested the receipt. On 23 -12 -1957 Natha Singh applied for the execution of his decree on the ground that Narinder Singh had not compiled with the terms of the decree and he (Natha Singh) was, consequently, entitled to the possession of the land In dispute, Narinder Singh, however, opposed this prayer, with the result that the following Issue was framed: Whether Narinder Singh, decree -holder No. 1, has complied with the terms of the decree so far as it relates -to him? If not, to what effect? The Executing Court found the issue against Narinder Singh on the ground that no doubt the payment in the present case might be deemed to have been made on 26 -11 -1957, but, according to Abdul Fateh v. Fateh Ali,, 137 Pun LR 1916 :, AIR 1916 Lah 249, this -payment was not a proper compliance with the terms of the decree, because Narinder Singh had not filed the receipt and got it certified by the Court on or before 2 -12 -1957.
(3.) THE lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that there had been noncompliance with the terms of the decree by Narinder Singh on two grounds (1) that if it was true that he had made the payment to the vendees on 26 -11 -1957, there was apparently no hitch -in his filing the receipt on 2 -12 -1957 or even earlier to show that the money had been paid by the due date and (2) that the payment appeared to have been certified by one of the vendees only and there was nothing on the record to show that he was authorised to receive or attest' the payment on behalf of the vendees.;