SOBHA SINGH Vs. CHAJJU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jangir Singh, defendant No. 2 is the father of Chajju Singh, defendant No. 1. Vide agreement dated 9th June, 1967, Jangir Singh (defendant No. 2) agreed to sell some of his agricultural lands in favour of Sobha Singh plaintiff. Instead of standing by his agreement aforesaid, Jangir Singh sold these very lands to Bhag Singh. Sobha Singh filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 14,000/- against defendant No. 8 for the breach of contract of sale, wherein he was awarded a decree for Rs. 9,247/-. In the execution proceedings which followed the passing of this degree Sobha Singh got certain lands allegedly belonging to defendant No. 2, attached. Defendant No. 1 filed objections that the land under attachment had been gifted by defendant No. 2 to him on 9th September, 1968; much before the passing of the decree in favour of the plaintiff on 6th January, 1970. The objection petition was accepted and the land gifted to defendant No. 1 by defendant No., 2 was, consequently, released from attachment in execution of the decree. It was thereafter that the plaintiff filed the suit, out of which RSA No. 1230/1977 has arisen, for a declaration that the gift deed of the disputed land executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 was void, illegal and ineffective, and that in spite of it defendant No. 2 continued to be the owner in possession of the dispute land. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 21st March, 1974. An appeal preferred against this decision before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, also failed on 18th April, 1977.

(2.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the appellant; who died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, that the gift of the disputed lands was executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 only to delay and defeat the creditors, and, therefore, deserves to be ignored observations made in Joginder Singh v. Labh Singh, 1977 PunLJ 199, have been quoted in support of the contention. The authority cited is of relevance because the alienation in the care cited was made during the pendency of execution proceedings, while in the present case it was made even before the passing of the decree in favour of the plaintiff on 9th September, 1968.

(3.) Secondly, it has been mentioned by the two Courts below that according to plaintiffs' own showing, as given out by his witnesses, there is other property of defendant No. 2, much more in value than the decretal amount, from which the decretal amount of Rs. 9,274/- can conveniently be realised. Defendant No. 2 cannot, therefore, be accused of having executed the gift deed in favour of his minor son, defendant No. 1, with a view to either defeat or delay his creditors. The basis for filing the suit is, thus, knocked out.