Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THE order will dispose of C.R. Nos. 3286 and 3287 of 1985 which contain common questions of law and fact. The facts in the judgment are being given from C. R No 3286 of 1985.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Inder Singh was the owner of the property in dispute He sold it to Partap Singh, Respondent No. 2 vide sale deed dated 6.1 1980 for a consideration of Rs. 46,000/ - Ishwar Singh, Petitioner instituted a suit for pre -emption on the ground that he was the son of the vendor. Another suit for pre -emption was filed by Nihal Singh, Respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was the brother of the vendor. Both the suits were consolidated and decreed in the alternative. Relevant part of the decree passed by the Court is as follows: It is ordered that in view of my findings in the judgment of even date, I hereby decree the suit of Ishwar Singh Plaintiff for possession by way of pre -emption of agricultural land measuring 3 -1/2 Killas and fully described above on payment by Plaintiff Ishwar Singh to the vendee Defendant a sum of Rs. 52447/ - less 1/5th pre emption money already deposited by him on or before 30 10 1932 failing which his suit shall stand dismissed. I further order that in the event of the dismissal of the suit of Ishwar Singh, the suit shall stand decreed in favour of rival pre -emptor Nihal Singh on payment by him a sum of Rs 5247/ - (sic) to the vendee Defendant less 1/5th pre -emption money already deposited by him an or before 30. 11.1982 failing which his suit that also stand dismissed. Nihal Singh, decree -holder filed an application for execution stating that Ishwar Singh, Petitioner had net complied with the condition of the decree as he did not pay the preemption money and did not get possession of the land from the judgment debtor. It is stated that he i e decree holder had deposited the pre emption money in accordance with the order of the Court and, therefore, he was entitled to execute the decree.
(3.) ISHWAR Singh, Petitioner filed objection petition stating that he had paid the pre emption money to the judgment - debtor and took possession of the land by executing the decree Consequently, Nihal Singh could not execute the decree. The allegations in the objection -petition were controverted by Nihal Singh. The Executing Court held that the Petitioner did not pay the pre emption money to the judgment -debtor and that he did not take possession of the land in pursuance of the decree. Consequently it dismissed the objections. The Petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.;