HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harpal Singh has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal having been unsuccessful in both the courts below. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that he is owner in possession of the suit house measuring 10 marlas, having purchased it from defendant no.3 Jarnail Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 16.05.2001, for Rs.2,00,000/-. Defendants no.1 and 2 (State of Punjab and Collector-cum- Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner) got this property attached vide Report No.484 dated 18.07.2001 i.e. after purchase of the house by the plaintiff and therefore the said attachment is null and void. The plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit house and the attachment is null and void. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from auctioning the suit house. Defendants no.1 and 2, in their written statement, inter alia pleaded that defendant no.3 was a liquor contractor and a sum of Rs.48,53,650/- was due from defendant no.3 to defendants no.1 and 2 as on 31.03.2002 and at the time of filing of written statement, a sum of Rs.47,61,400/- was due from defendant no.3. After declaring defendant no.3 to be defaulter, his property including the suit house was attached according to law for recovering the due amount as arrears of land revenue. Sale deed dated 16.05.2001 was executed by defendant no.3 in collusion with the plaintiff to avoid payment of the due amount. The said sale deed is illegal and null and void.

(2.) Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, vide judgment dated 29.09.2005, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar, vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2006. Feeling still aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.