JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order under challenge dated 2.6.92 passed by the Court of Additional Distt. Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in Misc. Civil objection petition No. 5/1987 by which the objection petition of the appellant/applicant Smt. Vimla was dismissed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. against which the appellant has preferred this appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant purchased some portion of house in dispute by registered sale-deed which is clear from certified copy of sale-deed Ex. 2. According to learned counsel for the appellant, sale-deed was proved by the appellant's witness AW-1 Surya Prakash and, therefore, it is clear that appellant-applicant is the owner of the property in dispute which is subject matter in the execution petition. According to learned counsel for the appellant, original suit No. 2/80 was filed by M/s. Vinod Kumar Brij Mohan against firm M/s. Liladhar Rathi and others impleading its partner Rameshwar Lal, Kanhaiyalal and his two brothers Om Prakash and Mahaveer Prasad. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 26,999.95. The learned counsel for the appellant placed on record certificate copy of the suit No. 2/80 and the relevant order-sheet of the above suit. It is submitted that the suit was filed only on 26.7.80 and that too without payment of court fees. According to the learned counsel for the appellant when the suit was not properly constituted and it was without any court fees, therefore, in the eye of law it cannot be said that the suit was pending till the proper court fees was paid. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that the suit was decreed by the trial Court on 20.11.84. It is also submitted that after getting the decree, plaintiff-respondent initiated the execution proceeding and since appellant-applicant came to know that appellant's house is going to be auctioned, she filed the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 58 Civil Procedure Code. It is alleged by the appellant-applicant that house in dispute was purchased by the applicant-appellant by registered sale-deed dated 30.6.80 from her husband Kanhaiyalal, judgment debtor who was defendant by name in the civil original suit No. 2/80. The appellant also submitted the certified copy of the sale-deed in support of the objection petition which shows that above sale-deed was presented for registration on 31.7.80. The appellant also submitted the certified copy of the sale-deed in support of the objection petition which shows that above sale-deed was presented for registration on 31.7.80. According to learned counsel for the appellant till that date, notice of suit was not even served upon Kanhaiyalal, husband of appellant, therefore, there was no bar of execution of sale-deed by Sh. Kanhaiyalal in favour of any person including the appellant. It is also stated that property in dispute was not attached on 30.7.80 or on 31.7.80, therefore, also there was no bar of transfer of property in dispute. In view of registered sale-deed in favour of appellant, it is clear that the title vests in the appellant- applicant from the date of execution dated 30.7.80 and, therefore, the house of appellant cannot be attached and put to auction in execution of a decree against the firm Liladhar Rathi or its partner including Kanhaiyalal who is husband of appellant-applicant. Kanhaiyalal is having separate independent legal entity; whereas appellant is, though his wife, but having separate legal entity as she purchased the property and also right to put the property in auction, therefore, appellant cannot be deprived of the property in the execution of decree which was granted against him M/s. Liladhar Rathi and its partner. 2. The decree holder submitted reply to the objection petition of the appellant before the Executing Court and it is stated that the appellant is wife of judgment debtor Kanhaiyalal and she has no possession of any of the portion of the house and sale-deed was not executed in accordance with law. The Executing Court after framing issues gave opportunity to lead evidence of both the parties, upon which appellant herself did not appear in witness box, but one of alleged power of attorney holder Surya Prakash gave statement before the Court below and produced the power of attorney executed by the appellant in favour of Surya Prakash. In the same way, the decree holder produced witness Brij Mohan, who is also power of attorney holder of decree holder. 3. After arguments, Executing Court rejected the above objection petition by order dated 2.6.92 holding that the sale-deed was executed to avoid the attachment and the legal proceedings of decree holder and in view of this finding objection petition was dismissed. 4. 3. After arguments, Executing Court rejected the above objection petition by order dated 2.6.92 holding that the sale-deed was executed to avoid the attachment and the legal proceedings of decree holder and in view of this finding objection petition was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in these circumstances submitted that when there is specific issue No. 2 framed by Executing Court with respect to the fact that whether the suit property was attached or not and if so, then what is effect of attachment. According to learned counsel for the appellant, this issue has not been proved by the judgment debtor and no evidence was produced either oral or documentary in support of that issue, therefore, the Executing Court committed illegality in deciding issue No. 2 and infact the Executing Court failed to decide issue No. 2 which should have been decided in favour of the appellant. 5. It is true that issue was framed with respect to the effect of attachment over the property in dispute and it is admitted case of respondent that property was not attached during the trial of the suit or atleast on 26.7.80 or till 31.7.80. Therefore, the finding over issue No. 2 which has not been recorded by the trial Court, is not proper. 6. So far as finding on issue No. 1 is concerned, facts relevant are that present suit No. 2/80 was filed on 26.7.80. It is true that payment of Court fees was not paid on that day but by order dated 26.7.80 itself, the trial Court granted time to file the Court fees for which the trial Court is empowered under Section 149 Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court also issued the notice of injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code and also issued notice of application under Order 38, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code. It appears from the order- sheets dated 30.7.80 placed on record by the counsel for the appellant that power has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 2 who is none else then the real brother of husband of the appellant. It is also true that notice of the suit was not served upon the respondent No. 3 Kanhaiyalal. On 30.7.80 power was filed on behalf of defendant No. 2 Rameshwar Das by his Advocate before the trial Court. It is also true that notice of the suit was not served upon the respondent No. 3 Kanhaiyalal. On 30.7.80 power was filed on behalf of defendant No. 2 Rameshwar Das by his Advocate before the trial Court. The present sale-deed was executed as stated above and it is clear from the certified copy of sale-deed dated 30.7.80 which was presented for the first time on 30.7.80. It is also admitted fact that the appellant is wife of defendant of the original suit and also brother's wife of defendant No. 2 and it is also admitted fact that sale-deed was executed by Kanhaiyalal, husband-defendant No. 3 in favour of the appellant after the date of institution of the suit though summons were not served upon Kanhaiyalal, but a bare perusal of objection petition shows that no averments have been made by the appellant objector with respect to circumstances in which the portion of house was sold to the appellant. When there was a civil suit pending and when objector and judgment debtor are husband and wife and when there is allegation of getting the sale-deed to avoid the decreetal amount, it is duty of the objector to show that sale-deed was executed bonafidely and not a sham transaction and in case of this type of relations, the circumstances leading to the case are most important and relevant facts which are in the knowledge of appellant only. The appellant has not even disclosed whether after purchase d of above house, she started living separately from her husband or not, whether she has got exclusive possession of the purchased property or not. She has not disclosed the reason that under what circumstances, all other real brothers of husband of appellant were not in position to bring to the notice of Kanhaiyalal the fact of filing the suit by the plaintiff. It is clear from the order-sheet dated 30.7.80 itself that the defendant No. 2 Rameshwar real brother was served with summons of the suit. It is clear from the order-sheet dated 30.7.80 itself that the defendant No. 2 Rameshwar real brother was served with summons of the suit. All the circumstances clearly show that appellant-applicant has filed the objection petition relying upon the sole fact that property was registered in her favour and despite the objection of the decree holder, could not explain the bonafideness of the transaction and from the facts it is clear that sale-deed is nothing but sham transaction and when document is sham, then it gives no right title or interest in the property to the purchaser. 7. In addition to above, it is clear that it was duty of the objector appellant-applicant to prove her case for which she was the best witness, but she did not appear in the witness box. The evidence of power of attorney of appellant is of no value as the power of attorney cannot give any evidence which is in the personal knowledge of appellant-applicant herself. 8. There appears to be no reason for not appearing in the witness box of the appellant, therefore, also adverse inference require to be drawn against the appellant. As if she would have come in the witness box she would have admitted the fact and circumstances leading to the inference of present sale- deed as sham transaction to avoid the anticipated decree against Kanhaiyalal, husband of appellant. The contention of appellant that property was not attached on the date of sale and there was no stay order against the sale in favour of Kanhaiyalal, is of no consequence in view of the fact that sale-deed itself is sham transaction. The appellant also could not produce Kanhaiyalal, her husband to prove her case that transaction is not sham transaction nor she could produce any of the judgment debtors who are real brothers of her husband. In these circumstances, there is no force in any of the statement of counsel for the appellant. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in WLN 1971 Part I-289 (Smt. Ratan Devi v. Jawarmal Sultanmal and ors.) wherein it is held that transfer by the husband of the building in favour of wife in lieu of her debt was a genuine transaction and, therefore, that transaction is not held to be voidable. Here in this case, the genuineness of the transaction itself is found to be against the appellant, therefore, the judgment has no application, but also supports the contention of respondent that transaction must be a genuine transaction to avoid the execution also relied upon the judgment reported in 1995 Karnataka, 35, which is also having no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In view of above discussion, appeal is dismissed with cost. Stay order, if any, be also vacated.Appeal dismissed. *******