BAKSHI RAM TIWARI Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 30.4.1999, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur, who rejected the objection of the defendant by deciding issue No. 1 framed on 4.11.1997 that the civil court at Hoshiarpur had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Punjab and Sind Bank filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8650 executed by defendant No. 2- Anil Sharma in favour of defendant No. 8-Bakshi Ram Tiwari, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8653 executed by deceased D.P. Sharma, predecessor in interest of defendants No. 5 to 7; namely, Amrit Sharma, Ravi Kumar Sharma and Pawan Kumar Sharma, in favour of defendant no. 8 aforesaid, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8648 executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 8, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document no. 8649 executed by defendant No. 6, in favour of defendant No. 8, the sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8652 executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 8 and sale deed dated 17.12.1990 bearing document No. 8651 executed by defendant No. 7 in favour of defendant No. 8, all the sale deeds pertaining to Kothi No. 113, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, are illegal, void, inoperative and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff-Bank, who is creditor of the partners of M/s Woodland Paper Board Mills and Packages, and these sale deeds have been executed with the intention to delay and defeat the rights of the creditor-Bank and are liable to be set aside under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Bank has a lien to effect the recovery from the said property through execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 283/81/88 of 8.10.1988 decided on 6.4.1990 by the court of Shri H.P. Handa, the then Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur.

(3.) THE parties addressed arguments on this preliminary issue and for the reasons given in para-4 of the impugned order dated 30.4.1999, which is reproduced herein below, this issue was decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff :-