JUDGMENT : Tudball, J. The facts of the case are as follows: The decree-holder, who is the appellant before me, brought a suit for preemption of certain property and on the 13th of February, 1907, he obtained a decree for possession conditional on his paying into court to the credit of the vendee the sum of Rs. 1,000, on or before the 15th of March, 1907. On the 6th of March, 1907, he deposited the money in court. On the 15th of March, 1907, the vendee appealed. The money remained in court. On the 15th June, 1907, the appeal was allowed and the decree was set aside. On the 18th of July, 1907, one Daryao Singh, who had obtained a money decree against the pre-emptor, attached a portion of the money in execution of his decree. The pre-emptor objected to the attachment and did his best to protect the money. But the court decided against him and Daryao Singh removed the sum of Rs. 193-4-6. In the meantime, on the 13th of November, 1907, the pre-emptor filed a second appeal in the High Court, and on the 14th of July, 1908, that appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the court of first appeal for decision on its merits. This decision was upheld on Letters Patent appeal on the 26th of February, 1909. The District Judge then decided the appeal on its merits on the 27th of August, 1909, and dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the court of first instance. The decree-holder then applied to the court of first instance to be put in possession of the property in execution of the decree. Objection was taken on behalf of the vendee that the full sum of Rs. 1,000 was not in court and available to him and that, therefore, the decree-holder should not be granted possession. The court of first instance dismissed the objection and granted possession to the decree-holder. The latter was put into possession. The vendee appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge has passed an order that if the pre-emptor do pay into court within a fixed time the sum of Rs. 193-4-6 plus a further sum of Rs. 100-0-0, as damages to the vendee, then the order of the first court shall stand good and possession will remain with the pre-emptor. The vendee appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge has passed an order that if the pre-emptor do pay into court within a fixed time the sum of Rs. 193-4-6 plus a further sum of Rs. 100-0-0, as damages to the vendee, then the order of the first court shall stand good and possession will remain with the pre-emptor. But if the aforesaid amount is not paid into court to the credit of the vendee within the time fixed then the order of the court of first instance should be set aside and the vendee be restored to possession and the balance of Rs. 1,000-0-0 will be repayable to the pre-emptor. The pre-emptor decree-holder has appealed. The vendee has filed certain objections, one of which has clearly been made on a misunderstanding of the order of the District Judge. The vendee appears to have been under the apprehension that the District Judge ordered payment of the sum of Rs. 100-0-0 only, whereas, as a matter of fad, the District Judge ordered payment of Rs. 293-4-6. The other objection, however, is to the effect that in the circumstances the application for execution by delivery of possession should have been disallowed in toto. The case for the appellant is that he is entitled to possession of the property free of all conditions. It is quite clear, that the present trouble has arisen solely by reason of the appeal which the defendant-vendee made on the 15th of March, 1907, to the District Judge. The final decree in the case is the decree of the 27th August, 1909, whereby the decree of the 13th February, 1907, was upheld. This latter decree laid down a certain condition, and nobody can deny that that condition was properly fulfilled by the plaintiff pre-emptor. It is urged that after the appeal was allowed on the 15th of June, 1907, the money was no longer pre-emption money that it was money belonging to the pre-emptor personally and his judgment-creditor, Daryao Singh, had every right to attach it. But the whole matter was really sub judice. The pre-emptor cannot be said to be guilty of any negligence whatsoever. When the money was attached he did his best to protect it he was lying in court at the peril of that person to whom, as between the parties the court would finally decide that that sum was payable. But the whole matter was really sub judice. The pre-emptor cannot be said to be guilty of any negligence whatsoever. When the money was attached he did his best to protect it he was lying in court at the peril of that person to whom, as between the parties the court would finally decide that that sum was payable. That final decision was that it was payable to the vendee, and therefore, it was in my opinion clear that the money lay in court at the peril of the vendee, The situation was brought about wholly and solely by his appeal, which finally failed. It is impossible to hold that the action of Daryao Singh can be held to be the action of the pre-emptor. His removing of the money from court cannot in anywise be said to be a removal by the pre-emptor. The vendee chose to take his chance of an appeal, and the appeal was finally decided against him. The money was lying to his credit in court, and I Can see no wrongful act on the part of the pre-emptor to which the loss of the sum of Rs. 193-4-6 can be ascribed. It is true, that it is his duty to pay his creditor. There is nothing to show that he had no other property where from to pay the small debt of Rs. 193-4-6. In the circumstances of the case, I can see no equity in forcing the pre-emptor to pay a further sum of Rs. 193 4-6, much less, the additional fine of Rs. 100, which has been imposed by the District Judge. The order for payment of this latter sum seems to me to be based on no principle whatsoever. The decree-holder having fully carried out the condition entered in the decree and not having removed any portion of that sum wrongfully from the court, is entitled to be placed in possession of the property without any restriction what soever. I allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the court of first instance. The objections filed by the respondent are disallowed. The appellant will have his costs.