DHARAM SINGH Vs. JAMNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Admitted facts in this case are that Smt Jamna Devi is the wife of Dharam Singh and she bad instituted proceedings under section 125, Cr, P. C. wherein she had been allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125 per month. It is further admitted by the petitioner Dharam Singh that he had married for the second time one Smt. Meera and from her he got three children. Respondent Jamna Devi had taken out execution of order of maintenance which was passed in her favour under section 125 Cr. P. C. The land of Dharam Singh, petitioner had been attached in execution of that order and while making statement in the Court he has admitted that in order to defeat and delay the execution he has transferred by way of gift the suit land in favour of his real sister Smt. Krishni. Respondent filed a suit for declaration challenging the gift in favour of Smt, Krishni by the petitioner Dharam Singh vide suit No4 392/1 of 1991 in the Court of Sub -Judge, Ghumarwin. It appears that the matter was taken up in Lok Adalat where Dharam Singh agreed to transfer four Bighas of cultivable land and one Bigha of Kharetar land alongwith house and kitchen measuring 9 x 17 Hath in a double storeyed building. On this arrangement a compromise decree came to be passed in this suit No. 392/1 of 1992 by the said Court. When the petitioner No. 1 failed to abide by the terms of compromise, the respondent was constrained to file execution of the decree aforesaid, wherein objections were raised under section 47 by the J Ds. Such objections were dismissed by the trial Court. Petitioners filed an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. against the dismissal of their objections before the District Judge, Bilaspur (although the appeal was not maintainable as after amendment of section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which defines decree, adjudication of objections under section 47, C. P. C. has been taken out of the purview of decree), and the said appeal also met the same fate. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Shri R. K, Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioners has made an attempt though in vain that his clients were under a mistaken and bona fide belief that the respondent would have life interest only in respect of the land and house that had been agreed to be transferred in her favour in terms of the statements made in suit No. 392 -1/91 before the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin. It may be reiterated here that this suit was filed by Smt. Jamna Devi challenging the gift made by Dharam Singh, petitioner No. 1 in the present case, in favour of his real sister and it was during the pendency of this case that compromise decree was passed, copy of which has been filed by the petitioner in the present case.