SHIV RAM SINGH Vs. RAMESHWARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING an orderdated 22 November, 2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Guna, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 58 of c. P. C. with regard to attachment of the property said to have been received by the petitioner in partition effected under the provisions of the m. P. Land Revenue Code, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Codes) i. e. Section 178 of the Code, petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that due to the death of one Ramesh Chandra Sharma, a claim petition was filed by his wife and his legal heirs i. e. respondents No. 1 to 6. Theclaimstribunal passed award on 9th September, 2005 directing payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Sharma. In the award passed it was held that as the vehicle in question is not insured, therefore insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the entire liability is to pay the compensation is on Chandan Singh, the owner of the vehicle. Appeal filed against the award in the High Court was dismissed and a special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme court which was also dismissed on 7th february, 2007. Thereafter, when the claimants instituted the execution proceedings, petitioner herein who is one of sons of the owner of the vehicle. Chandan singh filed the present objection under Order xxi. Rule 58 inter alia contended that in a proceeding held before the Tehasildar, Guna on 6th August, 2007 under Section 178 of the code, the property in question is partitioned and a part of the property came into the share of the petitioner, and therefore, the property which is received by the petitioner in the partition cannot be attached for recovery of the amount awarded against Chandan Singh. This petition is rejected and it is observed by the learned Tribunal that the entire method is a device and brain work of Chandan Singh only to frustrate the execution of the award and get away from payment of compensation, the application for partition was filed by chandan Singh after special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. From a perusal of the order, Annexure P/3 dated 6th august, 2007 it is seen that the application was filed by Chandan Singh against his wife and the present petitioner and other family members and within the period of 22 days, the entire partition proceedings was concluded. Taking note of these facts, the learned Counsel has held that the partition is only a device to frustrate the claim of the persons in whose favour award has been passed and finding the partition to the property to have been done in the family after dismissal of the Special Leave petition filed by Chandan Singh before the supreme Court, the objection of the petitioner is rejected. This action of the executing Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 58 C. P. C. Cannot be termed as erroneous, illegal or perverse to such an extent that interference at this stage in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. The entire proceeding for partition was stage managed by Chandan Singh only to frustrate the claim of the Respondents No. 1 to 6 in whose favour award has been passed as far back as in the year 2005. The discretion exercised by the learned executing Court and the reasons indicated for rejection of the application is proper and this Court sees lack of bona fide and ulterior motto on the part of chandan Singh in seeking partition of the property under Section 178 of the Code with the sole purpose of frustrating the right of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to get the award executed and compensation released.

(3.) CONSIDERING the same this Court does not feel it proper to exercise discretion in this petition and is constrained to hold the petitioner and his father Chandan Singh wanted to circumvent the right of a poor widow lady and herchildren in claiming compensation awarded by the Tribunal and hence with this intention the so called partition was effected.