GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is execution second appeal by Gurcharan Singh-decree holder (DH) having failed in both the courts below. Petitioner-DH filed execution petition for execution of decree dated 13.08.2001 passed against Sarabjit Singh-judgment debtor (JD) for recovery of money. In the execution proceedings, disputed house was attached. Amarjit Singh-respondent herein filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure against attachment of the house alleging that JD had agreed to sell the said house to the objector for Rs.4,50,000/- vide agreement dated 26.03.1999 and received Rs.3,50,000/- and delivered vacant possession of the house to the objector and thereafter, JD executed registered sale deed dated 28.09.1999 in favour of objector on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly objector claimed himself to be owner in possession of the disputed house, not liable to attachment in execution proceedings against the JD. The objector also claimed himself to be bonafide purchaser of the disputed house for valuable consideration without notice of pendency of the suit. It was also alleged that there was no restraint order or attachment order regarding the said house at the time of agreement to sell and the sale deed in favour of objector.

(2.) OBJECTOR-DH by filing reply controverted the objections preferred by the respondent-objector. Impugned agreement and sale deed were controverted. It was pleaded that the alleged sale deed, if any, was executed during pendency of the suit and is, therefore, hit by doctrine of lis pendens. The said sale deed is fraudulent and collusive transfer. Learned executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri vide impugned order dated 07.01.2006 allowed the objection petition preferred by respondent. Appeal against the said order preferred by DH has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur vide impugned judgment dated 27.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, DH has filed this execution second appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner-DH contended that the sale deed was executed during pendency of the suit and is, therefore, hit by doctrine of lis pendens and the sale deed is collusive transfer of the house to defeat the decree.