STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Punjab has fled the present Regular Second Appeal against Shri Krishan Lal son of Shri Ram Lal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.10.1979, passed by the Court of District Judge, Patiala, who set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.5.19.79, passed by the Sub Judge, 2nd Class, Patiala who dismissed the suit of Shri Krishan Lal for declaration and injunction as prayed for.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner. Shri Krishan Lal son of Shri Ram Lal, filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the house and shop with chaubara, as described in the heading of the plaint and situated at Amloh and that these are not liable to be attached and sold in case of recovery by the Excise Department from the father of the plaintiff, and for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from attaching or selling the aforesaid property or interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiff was that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property under a registered gift deed dated 4.11.1968 executed in his favour by his father Shri Ram Lal. In this manner, Shri Ram Lal had no right, title or interest in the said property since 4.11.1968. According to the plaintiff, his father Shri Ram Lal allegedly took some excise contracts at Nabha and some amount was said to be due to the Department from him and that his father was a defaulter. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, ordered for the realisation of the amount due on account of the excise dues from his father and he Was attaching and selling the property for the recovery of the excise dues. This action on the part Of the defendant No.2 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff on coming to know that the house is going to be attached' and sold in execution of the recovery, made a prayer to defendant No.2 not to attach and sell the. property but to no effect. In Short, the plaintiff alleged that defendants have no right to attach and sell the said house and as such, the suit should be decreed.