RATTAN SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATTAN Singh plaintiff has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 23, 1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the judgment and decree dated April 21, 1980 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra, were set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are the Ram Singh defendant No. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1500/- from the plaintiff-appellant and executed a pronote dated April 22, 1974. When Ram Singh failed to repay the said amount along with interest within the stipulated period, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,800/- in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Thanesar, against defendant No. 1. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The said defendant was owner of one-half share of the land measuring 16 Kanals 3 Marlas, and he in the meanwhile transferred the same in favour of his brother Atma Singh defendant No. 2, through a collusive decree. In this way, defendant No. 1 defrauded the plaintiff-appellant by alienating the land. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for grant of a declaration against the defendant-respondents to the effect that the fraudulent transfer of agricultural land made by defendant-respondent No. 1 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 2, by way of collusive suit is not binding on him and the same is liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree passed in his favour. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant and the collusive decree between the defendants was set aside by declaring it null and void. On appeal filed by Atma Singh, defendant No. 2, learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra reversed the finding given by the trial Court and held that the suit was not properly filed as required under Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C. It is against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, that the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the evidence brought on record.