STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. TARLOCHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Punjab has filed the present regular second appeal against Shri Tarlochan 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 28.10.1978, passed by the Sub Judge, 2nd Class, Patiala, who dismissed the suit of Shri Tarlochan Lal for declaration and injunction as prayed for.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner. Shri Tarlochan Lal son of Shri Ram Lal, filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the House No. 696 along with Cheubara, as described in the heading of the plaint and situated at Amloh, and that it is 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 house and chaubara or interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) The case set up by plaintiff was that he is the owner and in possession of the said house and Cahubara 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 defend ants have no right to attach and sell the said house and as such, the suit should be decreed.