JUDGMENT Bajpai and Dar, JJ. - This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated February 21, 1935, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares by which the Plaintiffs claim for a sum of money as zar-e-chaharum was partly decreed and partly dismissed. 2. The Plaintiff, Malik Arjun is a Mahant of a Hindu religious endowment in the city of Benares and as such, he is the zamindar of a Mohalla in the city of Benares called Lachhmanpura. In this Mohalla, there is a plot of land No. 9701 measuring five Biswas seventeen Dhurs. Many years ago, this plot of land was leased out in three portions by the then Mahant of the endowment, to three persons for building houses, on a total rent of Rs. 121 per annum. On August 26, 1884, on July 6, 1887 and on January 25, 1896, the said three persons namely Ganpat, Baiju and Musammat Udasia executed three separate qabuliats in favour of the zamindar by which they agreed to hold the property as leasehold property on payment of certain rent and on certain terms and conditions specified therein. In all the three qabuliats, it is set out that a custom of haq-e-chaharum prevails in the locality and applies to the leasehold property and by virtue of the custom, the zamindar is entitled to recover one-fourth of tee sale proceeds in case of sale of the leasehold interest or any building constructed thereon by the lessee. In the first two of the qabuliats, the operation of custom is not expressly stated to extend to auction sales but in the third and the last one, it is so stated. The lessees, in due course built small houses on the land leased and on November 22, 1900, on November 27, 1900 and on March 29, 1901, the lessees by separate deeds conveyed their rights and interest in the said leasehold property to Gopaldas and in due course, Gopaldas entered in possession of the property and made substantial buildings upon it. 3. 3. On April 9, 1920 and on February 1, 1921, Gopaldas by two separate deeds mortgaged his rights and interest in the said leasehold property in favour of Mahant Shivanath Puri and default having been made by Gopaldas in payment of the mortgage money, Shivanath Puri raised an action in the Court of the subordinate Judge of Benares to enforce the mortgage and obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 47,363/14/-. In execution of this mortgage decree, the property mortgaged, which at the time was a large and substantial house with shops on plot No. 9701, was sold by public auction and purchased by Abdul Hashim for a sum of Rs. 50,000. The auction sale was concluded on January 9, 1934 and was confirmed by Court on March 9, 1934. On March 9, 1934 a notice of demand was served by Mahant Arjun, the Zemindar of Mohalla Lachhmanpura on the purchaser, Abdul Hashim for payment of Rs. 12,500, his haq-e-chaharum being one fourth of the price for which the property was sold. The purchaser, Abdul Hashim demurred and denied his liability to pay an haq-e-chaharum and referred the zamindar to Court to recover his haq-e-chaharum, if any was due to him, from the sale proceeds were deposited in Court. A claim was put forward by the Zemindar before the execution Court for one-fourth of the purchase money in deposit in Court out of the sale proceeds which was opposed by the decree-holder and eventually by an order of the Court, dated April 28, 1934, a sum of Rs. 12,500 was held back pending the settlement of controversy between the rival claimants about it and the rest of the sale proceeds were distributed according to law. This sum of Rs. 12,500 is still in deposit in the Imperial Bank and awaits the decision of controversy between the rival claimants. 4. On May, 21, 1934, the Zemindar. Malik Arjun raised an action in the Court of the subordinate Judge of Benares for recovery of Rs. This sum of Rs. 12,500 is still in deposit in the Imperial Bank and awaits the decision of controversy between the rival claimants. 4. On May, 21, 1934, the Zemindar. Malik Arjun raised an action in the Court of the subordinate Judge of Benares for recovery of Rs. 12,500 against Gopaldas, the owner of leasehold interest whose property was sold by auction, Mahant shivanath Puri, the decree holder under whose decree the property was sold and against Muhammad Abdul Hashim, the auction purchaser of the property and these three persons were made Defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the action The Plaintiff' case shortly stated is that in Mohalla Lachhmanpura in the city of Benares the custom of haq-e-chaharum prevails which custom entitles the Zemindar in case of each sale of any property in the locality to receive one-fourth of the sale consideration as haq-e-chaharum, that this custom applies to private sales as well as to auction sales and under this custom the seller, the purchaser and the decree-holder are all liable for the payment of haq-e-chaharum. The suit was contested by Shivanath Puri, the decree-holder Defendant NO. 2 and by Abdul Hashim, the auction purchaser, Defendant No. 3 by separate defences. They denied that the custom of haq-e-chaharum prevails in the locality, they further denied its extension to auction sales. The auction purchaser, Muhammad Abdul Hashim further pleaded that the Zemindar was entitled to recover the haq-e-chaharum from the sale proceeds deposited in court and the auction purchaser having deposited the entire sale proceeds in Court was not personally liable to the claim. Shivanath Puri, the decree holder Defendant No. 2 further pleaded that the entire purchase money, in law, was to be applied in satisfaction of decree and the Zemindar's remedy, if any, is against the seller and auction purchaser and not against the decree-holder personally or against the deposit in question in Court. 5. The trial Court found that the custom of haq-e-chaharum prevailed in the locality and that it applied both to private sales as well as to auction sales. He further found that the seller and the purchaser, Defendants 1 and 3 were both liable to the Plaintiff's claim and the decree-holder Defendant No. 2 was not liable to any such claim. He further found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim any interest on the haq-e-chaharum which was due to him. He further found that the seller and the purchaser, Defendants 1 and 3 were both liable to the Plaintiff's claim and the decree-holder Defendant No. 2 was not liable to any such claim. He further found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim any interest on the haq-e-chaharum which was due to him. As a result, the Plaintiff was given a decree for Rs. 12,500 against Defendants 1 and 3 with costs The rest of the claim was dismissed. Against that judgment and decree, the purchaser, Muhammad Abdul Hashim, Defendant No. 3 has made this appeal and the Plaintiff, the zemindar has filed cross objections relating to the claim of interest which was disallowed by the trial Judge. 6. Some of the questions which were in controversy before the trial Court have not been debated before us. It is now conceded that the custom of haq-e-chaharum prevails in the locality and it applies equally to private sales and to auction sales. It is also not disputed before us that in any case, the seller, Defendant No. 1 is personally liable and the Plaintiff zemindar is entitled to one-fourth of the sale consideration or purchase money. The real controversy in the case is as to the respective liability of the auction purchaser and of the decree-holder for this haq-e-chaharum. On behalf of the auction purchaser, it is contended that the zamindar is entitled to recover haq-e-chaharum out of the sale proceeds and sale proceeds alone and the sale proceeds having been deposited in Court the zemindar's remedy is to take his haq-e-chaharum out of the said sale proceeds and the auction purchaser is not liable at all and the person who is liable is the decree-holder. On behalf of the decree-holder, it is contended that the sale proceeds are the fruits of the execution of his decree and he is entitled, in law, to appropriate the entire sale proceeds in execution of his decree and the zamindar is not entitled to take any share out of it and the remedy of the zemindar-is to get a personal decree against the seller and the purchaser. 7. The right in dispute being a customary right, the question of respective liability of the seller, the auction purchaser and the decree-holder is primarily a question of proof of custom and of its incidents. 7. The right in dispute being a customary right, the question of respective liability of the seller, the auction purchaser and the decree-holder is primarily a question of proof of custom and of its incidents. It is a matter of agreement that by virtue of the custom, the liability of the seller is absolute. There is some controversy as to the liability of the purchaser. On the one hand, it is contended that the liability of the purchaser is absolute and in all cases where the zamindar had not received haq-e-chaharum and he had to go to Court to enforce his claim, a decree had been invariably passed against the purchaser. On the other hand, it is contended that the liability of the purchaser is a conditional one and is limited to see that the purchase money is made available to the zemindar and in case of Court sale after the auction purchaser has deposited the money in Court for payment to persons rightfully entitled to it, the liability of the auction purchaser disappears. The evidence led in the case is not sufficient to establish as an incident of the custom, the liability of the decree-holder. In the course of his judgment, the trial Judge has remarked as follows: Of all the judgments and decrees produced in this case, there are not mare than two or three Instances so tar as it has been shown to me, in which a claim for 'zar-e-chaharum' wag decreed, against the decree-holder as such. In other cases, the decree-holder himself was the auction-purchaser and then the claim was decreed against him. 8. This portion of the judgment was not challenged before us and it has not been contended that by virtue of any custom the decree holder, in an auction sale, becomes liable to the Zamindar far payment of haq-e-chaharum. 9. It is also not disputed that in a private sale, as a matter of arrangement between the purchaser and seller, if a portion or the entire sale consideration is in fact, paid to a creditor of the seller then the Zamindar will not be able to enforce his claim against the creditor and the Zamindar's remedy will be only against the seller and the purchaser. Is there any distinction between the case of an ordinary creditor and an execution creditor and in the case .where the creditor has been paid off and the case where money has not yet been paid but is only deposited for the creditor's payment? 10. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, on behalf of the purchaser, contends that apart from custom or any incidents of custom, as a matter of law, the Zemindar is entitled to recover his haq-e-chaharum out of the sale proceeds and sale proceeds alone. In a case where the purchaser does not see that the sale proceeds are made available for the payment of the Zemindar, the purchaser becomes liable for the claim of the Zemindar but in a Court sale where the purchaser has deposited the entire sale proceeds in Court for payment to rightful claimants, he has discharged his obligation to see that the money is made available for the payment of the Zamindar and in such a case, no further liability remains against the purchaser and the Zamindar's rights are in such a case, to recover his haq-e-chaharum out of the sale proceeds and failing that from the decree holder and in support of this contention he relies upon Byjnath Pershad v. Mahmomed Fazle Hossein 1867 N.W.P.H.C.R. 404 which decision has been followed in this Court, more recently in Vishwa Nath Upadhya v. Asharfi Singh 1941 A.W.R. (Rev.) 866 in a well considered judgment of Sir Shah Sulaiman, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Bennet on December 9, 1935. In Byjnath Pershad v. Mahomed Fazle Hossein 1867 N.W.P.H.C.R. 404 the claim of the Zamindar for haq-e-chaharum against the execution creditor was affirmed and in the course of the judgment with reference to the right of hag-e-chaharum the following observations were made: His (the Zemindar's right arises upon the sale and it is a right (arising probably from the proprietary right in the soil on which the house is built) to a portion of the sale proceeds as a fine or fee on every change in the ownership of the house His right attaches to the sale proceeds and is a prior charge upon the proceeds. If the judgment creditor obtains the whole of the proceeds, nothing or not sufficient remaining to satisfy the Zemindar's due, he obtains something which belongs to the Zemindar 11. If the judgment creditor obtains the whole of the proceeds, nothing or not sufficient remaining to satisfy the Zemindar's due, he obtains something which belongs to the Zemindar 11. These remarks lend support to the contention that in the sale proceeds which arise on auction sales, the Zemindar has some vested right to the extent of his haq-e-chaharum and this right amounts to ownership or charge in the fund. In Vishwa Nath Upadhya v. Asharfi Singh 1941 A.W.R. (Rev.) 866 the claim for haq-e-chaharum against the auction purchaser was dismissed on the ground that the auction purchaser had deposited the entire purchase money in Court which the decree holder took away and the decree holder being primarily liable, was not made by the Zamindar, a party to the action. In the course of this judgment after approvingly quoting the remarks referred to above in, Byjnath Pershad v. Muhammad Fazle Hossein, Sir Shah Sulaiman explained the liability of the action purchaser to the claim of, the Zamindar for haq-e-chaharum on the analogy of a surety from English law. The relevant passage in Sir Shah Sulaiman's judgment is as follows: The second question is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree when he has left out the decree-holder who took away the whole of the purchase money. As already pointed out, the Plaintiff's right is to recover 1/4 of the sale price. Prima facie the right to recover it would be enforced against the person who has talc en away the whole price including the one-fourth share. That person, as was pointed out in Byjnath Pershad's case is the judgment creditor himself. So the person who would be primarily liable to the Plaintiff would be the decree-holder who had taken away the whole sale price. He should really have paid 1/4 of it to the Zamindar in discharge of his due and then enforced his decree for the realisation of the balance of the decretal amount or brought a suit against the judgment-debtor to be re-imbursed. The auction purchaser has paid the full price and he cannot in fairness be called upon to pay 1/4 of the price over again. The auction purchaser has paid the full price and he cannot in fairness be called upon to pay 1/4 of the price over again. Although it may not be strictly speaking possible to regard him as if he were exactly in the position of a surety, there seems in my mind to be no doubt (sic) his position is analogous to that of a (sic) liability merely arises because the person who has taken away the money has not paid the Zamindar's dues and not because the auction purchaser has not himself paid the lull price including the amount of his due. In these circumstances it would be unfair to pass a decree against the auction purchaser alone when the decree-holder has not been impleaded, because the auction purchaser would then be compelled to bring another suit against the decree-holder and fight out the whole question including the existence or nonexistence of the custom of haq-e-chaharum against him This, in my opinion would be unfair and unjust. In the case of sureties it is well-settled at least so far as this Court is concerned, that if the creditor forbears and omits to enforce his remedy against the principle debtor within the time allowed by law so that his right against any such debtor is barred by time, he would not he allowed to proceed against the surety for the latter may not be able to recover the amount from the principal debtor who owing to the lapse of time stands discharged. See, Ranjit Singh v. Naubat ILR 24 All. 504. It may also be added that in none of the cases mentioned above the Zamindar sued the auction purchaser alone excluding the decree-holder. I am therefore, of the opinion that the Plaintiff Zamindar is not entitled to obtain the decree against the auction-purchaser when he has omitted to implead the decree-holder who has taken away the 1/4 of the price paid by the auction purchaser, which was the Zamindar's due. 12. I am therefore, of the opinion that the Plaintiff Zamindar is not entitled to obtain the decree against the auction-purchaser when he has omitted to implead the decree-holder who has taken away the 1/4 of the price paid by the auction purchaser, which was the Zamindar's due. 12. On the other hand, there is a strong current of authority in this Court to the effect that in a case where the purchaser has paid the sale consideration to the seller the Zamindar is entitled to recover haq-e-chaharum from the purchaser and the Zamindar is not bound to follow the purchase money or its destination--See Heera Ram v. Hon'ble Sir Raja Deo Narain Singh 1867 N.W.P.H.C. Reports 63 (F.B.) and Dhandi Bibi v. Abdur Rahman (1901) 23 All. 209 and Kedar Nath and Another Vs. Datta Prasad Singh and Another, AIR 1922 All 370 . In Dhandi Bibi v. Abdur Rahman (1901) 23 All. 209 the earlier Full Bench decision of the N.W.P. High Court Reports in Heera Ram v. Hon'ble Sir Raja Deo Narain Singh 1867 N.W.P.H.C. Reports 63 (F.B.) was considered and explained as follows: We construe the judgment of the Full Bench as deciding that in the case of a customary right to receive haq-e-chaharum where it does not appear that the Zamindar's right to a share of the purchase money is limited to a right to claim it from the vendor, the right can be-enforced against the vendee also. 13. It follows from this that the Zamindar's right to receive haq-e-chaharum is not in the nature of a charge on the sale proceeds, nor is it in the nature of ownership of the fund but it is a right which can be enforced personally both against the seller and the purchaser and the sale proceeds only furnish a measure to determine the amount of the haq-e-chaharum and the Zamindar's right is not necessarily confined to the sale proceeds and to the sale proceeds alone. The main controversy between the auction purchaser and the decree-holder in this case is on the interpretation of the authorities of this Court The contention of the auction purchaser is that the Zamindar has a vested interest in the sale proceeds. He has got a charge over or a vested interest in the fund and his right is to recover his haq-e-chaharum from that fund and that fund alone. He has got a charge over or a vested interest in the fund and his right is to recover his haq-e-chaharum from that fund and that fund alone. The contention of the decree-holder is that one fourth of the purchase money furnishes only a measure or a standard to determine the amount of customary right but it creates no charge or ownership in the purchase money and the questions of ownership or charge in the purchase money and further questions of the liability of seller and purchaser and the decree-holder are matters relating to the incidents of custom and fall to be proved like other facts in the case. If the matter were res integra, we should be inclined to hold that the right of the Zamindar to recover haq-e-chaharum out of the sale proceeds and the right of the Zamindar to recover haq-e-chaharum from the execution creditor is primarily a matter of the proof of custom and of its incidents. But on the principle of stare decisis we are prepared to follow the law laid down in Byjnath Pershad v. Mahomed Fazle Hossein 1867 N.W.P.H.C.R. 404, in a case similar or analogous to those cases. The case however before us presents certain distinguishing features. In the city of Benares, the prevalance of custom of haq-e-chaharum is well-known. The property in dispute when it was put to Court sale was sold as a parjot land, in other words land liable to pay the rent to the Zamindar. The decree-holder, the judgment debtor and the auction purchaser are all residents of Benares well-acquainted with the custom. It may, therefore, be well presumed that at the time of the auction sale, the liability of payment of haq-e-chaharum was fully known to the parties concerned. The trial Judge has also found: I am satisfied that the auction purchaser bought the property with the knowledge that zar-e-chaharum would have to be paid. 14. This finding is based upon evidence and it seems to us, in the circumstances of the case to be sound. On the evidence which was led before him, the trial Judge has; further found that "the value of the property sold was about Rs. 62,000" and "there was a margin in the price paid for the payment of zar-e-chaharum" by the auction purchaser Abdul Hashim, Defendant No. 3. On the evidence which was led before him, the trial Judge has; further found that "the value of the property sold was about Rs. 62,000" and "there was a margin in the price paid for the payment of zar-e-chaharum" by the auction purchaser Abdul Hashim, Defendant No. 3. In the course of arguments before us, the decree-holder offered to purchase the property for Rs. 62,500 and further agreed to pay full costs of both Courts to the purchaser and the offer was kept upon for several days. The auction purchaser took time to consider it and finally rejected it. We think, therefore that the finding of the trial Judge as to the value of the property should also be accepted and it should further be accepted that the auction purchaser purchased the property in dispute for Rs. 50,000 keeping a margin for the payment of haq-e-chaharum. It is true that at the time of the auction sale, the liability to pay haq-e-chaharum was not notified. It is also true that there was no clear and distinct agreement to the effect that the auction purchaser would be called upon to pay haq-e-chaharum over and above the bid of Rs. 50,000 at which the sale was concluded. But it is also clear that he purchased the property at a low price keeping a margin for the payment of haq-e-chaharum and he knew full well that haq-e-chaharum was payable to the Zamindar and if before the sale was confirmed any controversy had been raised about the haq-e-chaharum the probabilities are that ttie sale might have been avoided and a re-sale of the property might have taken place; but if the haq-e-chaharum is now ordered by a decree of Court, to be recovered out of the sale proceeds, the judgment debtor and decree-holder both will suffer by the sale of the property at a low price and the auction purchaser who has purchased it will make a bargain. 15. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad contends that if there is no agreement, no estoppal and no statutory bar why should not the purchaser be allowed to make a bargain? A decree has been passed by the trial Court against the seller, the Defendant No. 1 and against the auction purchaser, Defendant No. 3 and the decree-holder Defendant No. 2, by the decree of the trial Court, has been exempted from the claim. A decree has been passed by the trial Court against the seller, the Defendant No. 1 and against the auction purchaser, Defendant No. 3 and the decree-holder Defendant No. 2, by the decree of the trial Court, has been exempted from the claim. The question for our consideration is, is there any valid reason for exempting Defendant No. 3 from the claim and for imposing a decree against Defendant No. 2. In our view, the liability against Defendant No. 2 can only be imposed on the basis of and on proof of custom and the proof of custom is lacking in the case. No doubt in a proper case on the authority of Byjnath Pershad v. Mahomed Fazle Hossein 1867 N.W.P.H.C.R. 404 and the Letters Patent decision (Vishwa v. Asharfi Singh 1941 A.W.R. (Rev.) 866 referred to above, a liability could be imposed against a decree-holder or against execution creditor to pay the haq-e-chaharum to the Zamindar but the principle of those cases, in the absence of proof of custom, should not be extended to a case where the auction purchaser has purchased the property for a low price with a margin for the payment of haq-e-chaharum and with full knowledge of the liability of the payment of haq-e-chaharum. No case is, therefore, made out for exempting the auction purchaser from liability to the Zamindar's claim and for imposing a decree against the decree-holder personally or for a direction that the Zamindar's haq-e-chaharum was to be recovered only from the sale proceeds in deposit in Court. 16. And if the matter had rested here the decree of the trial Court might have had to be affirmed in its entirety. 17. But Mr. Banerji, on behalf of the decree-holder, the Defendant No. 2 has made an offer to purchase the property sold to the Defendant No. 3 as is specified in the sale certificate dated March 14, 1934, printed on page 441 of the record of this appeal for a sum of Rs. 50,000, plus a sum of Rs. 12,500, plus a further sum equal to costs of both Courts incurred by the Defendant No 3 and he has further agreed to let this offer stand not only with a view to an amicable settlement of the controversy but in the events of the failure of that settlement to enable us to pass an equitable decree in the case. And Mr. And Mr. Malik on behalf of the Plaintiff agrees to the transfer being effected by Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 2 in substitution of auction sale of January 9, 1934 and agrees not to make any fresh claim for haq-e-chaharum on the basis of the subsequent transfer. 18. Now, in this case the auction sale of January 9, 1934, took place either subject to the implied understanding that the Zamindar's haq-e-chaharum would have to be paid by the auction purchaser over and above the last bid of Rs. 50.000/- for which the sale was concluded or it took place without any such understanding, but all the same under a misapprehension as to the liability of payment of haq-e-chaharum and of the persons who would be liable for it and the funds from which it would be recoverable. It seems, therefore, in the circumstances of the case equitable to give the auction purchaser Defendant No. 3 an option to keep the property and to pay the haq-e-chaharum to the Zamindar or to transfer the property to the decree-holder on condition of receiving the entire sale consideration paid by the auction purchaser and all costs incurred by him and of making the decree-holder liable for payment of haq-e-chaharum to the Zatnindar. 19. There remains now to consider the cross-objection of the Plaintiff relating to the claim of interest which was disallowed by the trial Court. In Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited v. Ruttanji Ramji 1938 AWR (PC) 52 Sir Shadi Lal in delivering the judgment of the Board has stated the law in the following words: Now interest for the period prior to the date of the suit may be awarded, if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at a fixed rate or it is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law or under the provisions of any substantive law entitling the Plaintiff to recover interest, and his Lordship further pointed out in the course of his judgment that interest could not be recovered as damages u/s 73 of the Indian Contract Act where it was not; recoverable under the Interest Act (Act-XXIII of 1839). In the case before us the trial Judge has found as follows: I do not think that this is a case in which any interest should be allowed. In the case before us the trial Judge has found as follows: I do not think that this is a case in which any interest should be allowed. Neither there is any custom nor any contract for the payment of interest. The claim was brought soon after the confirmation of sale. There has not been undue delay. Hence Interest by way of damages should also not be allowed. 20. We think that the reasons given by the trial Judge for disallowing interest, are sound and his judgment on this part of the case should be maintained except in the manner indicated below. 21. The result is that both appeal and cross-objection are allowed in part and in modification of the decree of the trial Court there will be the following decree in the cause: The Plaintiffs claim is decreed for Rs. 12,500 only against Defendant No. 3 subject to following conditions within 30 days of this date the Defendant No. 3 shall exercise the option of retaining the property sold to him by sale certificate dated March 14, 1934, or of transferring it to Defendant No. 2. This option shall be expressed in writing by a petition to the lower Court. 22. In the event of Defendant No. 3 expressing the option of retaining the said property the Defendant No. 3 shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 12,500 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 3 shall further pay costs of both Courts to the Plaintiff and failing this payment the Plaintiffs decree for Rs. 12,500 and said costs shall be executed against Defendant No. 3 and also at the option of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 for the principal sum of Rs. 12,500. 23. In the event of Defendant No. 3 expressing the option of transferring the property to Defendant No. 2 the Defendant No 2 shall deposit within 60 days of the expression of option or within such further time as the Court below in its discretion may extend or allow, a Sum of Rs. 50,000 for the payment of Defendant No. 3, this being the amount paid by Defendant No. 3 at auction sale and further sum of Rs. 1,848-9-3, this being the cost of Defendant No. 3 in both Courts and a further sum of Rs. 12,500, this being the haq-e-chaharum due to the Plaintiff. 50,000 for the payment of Defendant No. 3, this being the amount paid by Defendant No. 3 at auction sale and further sum of Rs. 1,848-9-3, this being the cost of Defendant No. 3 in both Courts and a further sum of Rs. 12,500, this being the haq-e-chaharum due to the Plaintiff. On the deposit of the said three sums being made the right of Defendant No. 3 in the said property shall be deemed to be transferred and conveyed to the Defendant No. 2. On the said deposit being made by the Defendant No. 2, the said sums of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1848-9-3 shall be paid to Defendant No. 3 and the said sum of Rs. 12,500 shall be paid to the Plaintiff; and the Plaintiff shall only execute decree for his costs of both Courts against Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 half and half and the Plaintiff shall not be entitled to claim any further sum for haq-e-chaharum on the basis of transfer by Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 2 as herein provided. 24. In the event of the Defendant No. 3 expressing the option of transferring the said property to Defendant No 2 and the Defendant No. 2 failing to make the said deposits the Plaintiff shall not execute his decree against Defendant No. 3 but the Plaintiff shall execute his decree for Rs. 12,500 and for his costs of both Courts against Defendant No. 2 personally or the Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover Rs. 12,500 with such interest as accrued due on the said sums which is in deposit in Imperial Bank, Benares, as the result of the execution of decree of Defendant No. 2 in suit No. 93 of 1932 (Execution Case No. 154 of 1932) of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares Mahant Sheonath Puri v. Gopal Das and the Plaintiff shall execute his decree for costs of both Courts against Defendant No. 2. 25. Save as provided above, in other contingencies Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 shall bear their own costs.