DHAN SINGH Vs. BABOO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff appellant under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil P. C. Mukat Lal and Ram Chander respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed two suits Nos. 60 of 1968 and 140 of 1968 in the court of the second Munsif, Bulandshahr for recovery of an amount against Baboo Ram, respondent. After filing the suit the said respondents Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application for attachment before judgment of the property of Baboo Ram. The court directed attachment before judgment of the properties including plot No. 555 area 3 bighas 10 biswas and 13 biswansis. Suit No. 148 (140) of 1968 was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal was filed against the said judgment. In appeal the parties compromised and a compromise decree wag passed. The attachment before judgment took place on 12th March, 1968. On 1st July, 1968 Baboo Ram executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants. Suit No. 148 (140) of 1969 was dismissed by the trial court on 15th May, 1969. After the compromise decree in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 they sought execution of the decree against the property sold in favour of the appellants. An objection was filed by the appellants to the effect that the suit having been dismissed the attachment before judgment automatically came to an end and as such the property which had been transferred in favour of the appellants could not be proceeded against in execution of the decree against Baboo Ram. Those objections were dismissed and hence the present suit was filed. It was further alleged in this suit that the proceedings of compromise were null and void as they were collusive,

(2.) Respondent No. 1 did not contest the suit but the suit was contested by respondents Nos. 2 and

(3.) It was alleged in defence that there was no collusion, the suits were rightly decreed and that the attachment was valid in law and as such they could proceed against the property. 3. The trial court found that the decrees were not collusive, the attachment was made according to law and the plaintiffs appellants were not entitled to any interest nor were they in possession over the disputed property hence the suit was dismissed on 21st March, 1973. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court also dismissed the appeal on 25th November, 1974. Against the said judgment the present second appeal has been filed in this Court. The lower appellate court agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court that the proceedings of compromise were not collusive and that the attachment before judgment was also valid in law. It was further found that the plaintiffs appellants were not in possession of the property on the date when the agreement of sale was said to have been executed. In fact the finding of the lower appellate court is that there was no prior agreement of sale and the case set up by the plaintiffs appellants was absolutely false.