GURPRIT SINGH Vs. THE STATION COMMANDER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 4th February, 1960, the Station Commander, Ferozepore, the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore and the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ferozepore, respondents 1 -3, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11475/68 Paise on account of the arrears of the lease money regarding the Memorial Talkies, Ferozepore, against Guru Harnam Singh, respondent No. 4. This suit was decreed on 12th of July, l960. The execution of the decree was taken out on 26th July, 1966 and the decree -holders attached Kothi No. 14A. The Mall, Ferozepore Cantt, which according to the decree -holders, belonged to the judgment -debtor. On 6th of October, 1967, Gurprit Singh, who is the son of the judgment -debtor filed an objection petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure, against the said attachment on the ground that the kothi belonged to him and was in his exclusive possession and consequently, it was not liable to attachment in the decree passed against his father. His case was that he had purchased this property from his father by means of a registered sale deed dated 21st March, 1958 for Rs. 5 000 even before the respondents had filed a suit against the latter. This objection petition was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub ordinate Judge Ferozepore on 7th of November, 1967, on the ground that the sale of the kothi made in favour of Gurprit Singh appeared to the learned Judge to have been made with the intention of delaying and defeating the claim of the decree -holders. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by Gurprit Singh.

(2.) I have perused the order under revision and I find that the learned Senior Sub ordinate Judge has disposed of this matter in a very slip shod manner. It was urged by the Learned Counsel that in order to prove his title to the kothi in dispute, the petitioner had produced the original sale deed in his favour, a number of notices which had been issued by the Cantonment Board to him for the payment of various taxes in connection with that kothi and a number of receipts obtained by him with regard to the payment of property and house tax. The learned Judge should have considered all this documentary evidence and then given his decision. He has remarked in his order that the sale in favour of the petitioner was during the pendency of the suit. That fact is incorrect, because, as already mentioned above, the sale deed was executed and registered on 21st March, 1953 while the suit by respondents 1 -3 had been filed against respondent No. 4 in February, 1960. Then again, it was mentioned in the order under revision -" I had specifically asked the judgment -debtor if he had satisfied if the sum of Rs. 5,000/ - given under the sale was secured He did not agree." It is not understood as to what was meant by the learned Judge by these observations. It appears that the learned Judge was influenced by the sole fact that since the objector was the son of the judgment -debtor, the sale in his favour mast have been made to defeat the claim of the creditors of his father and, that the objection petition filed by the son must be collusive. Under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, the Court had to investigate the claim or objection of the petitioner with the like power as regards the examination of the claimant or objector and in all other respects as if he was a party to the suit. Under Order 21, Rule 59, the claimant or the objector had to adduce evidence to show that on the date of the attachment, he had some interest in or was possessed of, the property attached. In the present case, the petitioner had adduced such evidence and that had to be considered by the learned Judge before a decision was given against him. But this was nit done in the instant case.