ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. CHANDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dt. 08.04.2011 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner, whereby, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 and set aside the judgment and decree dt 25.05.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Bikaner. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: respondent No. 1 Smt. Chanda Devi filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the appellant with the averments that certain recovery was raised by the defendant department towards M/s. Sohan Lal Manak Chand and the suit property was attached and, therefore, an objection was raised by her stating that the property attached was bequeathed by her father -in -law Shri Manak Lal by way of Will dt. 17.09.2004 and the plaintiff had nothing to do with the firm M/s. Sohan Lal Manak Chand, whose proprietor was Laxmi Narayan.

(2.) A written statement was filed by the appellant, inter alia, claiming that the suit property was ancestral property of defendant No. 3 Laxmi Narayan, who was plaintiff's son and the said fact was disclosed by Laxmi Narayan to the department and, therefore, the said property was attached; it was claimed that the property has been transferred with a view to deprive the department from recovering dues from the said immovable property.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the plaintiff filed first appeal before the District Judge, Bikaner, who by the impugned judgment and decree came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding non -maintainability of the suit on account of not seeking declaration regarding notice (Exhibit -3) was baseless as the case of the plaintiff was that she has nothing to do with the demand against the firm, which was a proprietorship of Laxmi Narayan and her property had wrongly been attached and, therefore, without seeking a declaration qua the notice (Exhibit -3), she was entitled to maintain the suit for injunction. The appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the property was owned by plaintiff and the same could not be attached towards the dues of defendant No. 3 Laxmi Narayan and, consequently, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and directed setting aside of attachment of the suit property.