Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1674 (PNJ)

Rekha v. Shanti Devi

2013-12-13

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- Instant civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) for setting aside the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehabad whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code for release of land measuring 4 kanals 1 marla from attachment, has been dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondents no.1 to 3-decree -holders filed execution application for execution of decree dated 07.08.2012 against respondents no.4 to 8 for recovery of Rs.5 lacs. In execution proceedings, the land in question was attached on 28.10.2012, however, during the pendency of said execution application, the petitioner purchased the land in question for a sale consideration of Rs.5,07,000/- from Vijay Singh-respondent no.4/judgment debtor on 04.10.2012 vide registered sale deed no.2322. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the land in question prior to the attachment of same and was not aware about the present execution. Therefore, the petitioner moved application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code for release of land measuring 4 kanals 1 marla from attachment which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.11.2013. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Section 53 of the Transfer of Propert Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case and if the same is to be made applicable, the decree-holders should file a separate suit. The learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is a lady and has purchased the property from respondent no.4-Vijay Singh/judgment debtor. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable sale consideration. The learned counsel has further contended that other sufficient land is available to satisfy the decree dated 07.08.2012. 5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner-objector is the wife of Jugti Ram @ Satish-judgment debtor/respondent no.8 herein and judgment debtor/respondent no.4 herein is the father of said Jugti Ram @ Satish, meaning thereby respondent no.4 through whom the present petitioner has purchased the land is her father-in-law. 5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner-objector is the wife of Jugti Ram @ Satish-judgment debtor/respondent no.8 herein and judgment debtor/respondent no.4 herein is the father of said Jugti Ram @ Satish, meaning thereby respondent no.4 through whom the present petitioner has purchased the land is her father-in-law. This clearly indicates that merely to defeat the right of decree holder, the alleged sale deed has been executed. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court commented on the plight of a decree-holder in India and observed as under in Satyawati vs. Rajinder Singh and another MANU/SC/0569/2013: 2013 (7) Scale 371. “2. In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed that “......... the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree....”. 3. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past. We are concerned with the case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal No.89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January, 1996. Decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant-plaintiff is not in a position to get fruits of his success.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and transfer of land has been made in favour of the petitioner by one of her family members only apparently to defraud the decree-holders. In C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs. Arji Papa Rao (deceased) after him his heirs and legal representatives and others 1963 AIR (SC) 1150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when transfer is in favour of member of same community or family members, presumption is against the bona fide of the transaction. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that other sufficient land is available for satisfying the decree is not acceptable because shares mentioned are variable and in the shape of frictions. 10. Keeping in view the fact that father-in-law and husband of the petitioner are judgment debtors in the present case, it seems that frivolous objections have been filed by the petitioner with an ulterior motive to delay the execution proceedings. 11. 10. Keeping in view the fact that father-in-law and husband of the petitioner are judgment debtors in the present case, it seems that frivolous objections have been filed by the petitioner with an ulterior motive to delay the execution proceedings. 11. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 11.11.2013. 12. Keeping in view the fact that there has been frightful delay, firstly caused by the judgment debtors and thereafter by the petitionerobjector which has made decree-holders to face protracted litigation and deprived them of the fruits of decree of civil court for long time, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with State Legal Services Authority, Haryana. 13. In case the costs are not paid, State Legal Services Authority, Haryana will be at liberty to effect the recovery as arrears of land revenue.