GIDHA Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the transferees, defendants, of certain property in a suit for declaration.

(2.) THE respondent Pyarelal instituted a suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, on 23rd October, 1945, on the allegations that he held a decree for Rs. 306/15/- against defendants Nos. 9 and 10, Maman Singh and Umrao Singh, and in execution of the said decree attached the produce of certain lands, khewat No. 2/1, khasra Nos 218, 220, 221, 226, 229, 230 and 231, measuring 9 bighas and 2 biswas situated at Bamanwas on the ground that the said produce weighing 3 maunds 19-1/2 seers of grain was the share of the produce payable to the judgment-debtors by way of rent. THE attachment was affected on 5th May, 1944. Gidha, Gangu, Hardev, Seeta, Sardara, Natha I and Natha II preferred an objection that the said land had been sold to them by the judgment debtors on 20th August. 1942, and the judgment-debtors had thereafter no interest in it, and that the grain was, therefore, not attachable. This objection was allowed on 19th February, 1945. It was alleged by Pyarelal that the said sale, dated 20th August, 1942, had been affected by Maman Singh and Umrao Singh with intention to defeat or delay the execution of the decree head by he plaintiff against the said Maman Singh and Umrao Singh, and was, therefore, inoperative against the plaintiff. It was urged that the said sale was fictitious, collusive and without consideration. Umrao Singh supported the plaintiff, but the vendees and Maman Singh contested the suit. THE trial court, after evidence, found that Pyarelal's decree was only against Umrao Singh, and Pyarelal could not challenge the validity of the sale of the half share of Maman Singh. It further held that the sale of the remaining half by Umrao Singh had been made with the intention of delaying or defeating the creditors, and the vendees had not proved good faith in obtaining the same, although the passing of the consideration had been held to have been proved. THE court granted a decree declaring that the transfer of half share in the land by Umrao Singh by sale dated 20th August, 1945, was void and inoperative, and the plaintiff Pyarelal had a right to attach half of the rent amounting to 1 maund 20-3/4 seers of grain in the hands of the vendees. THE suit regarding the sale of his share by Maman Singh to the vendees was dismissed, it being held that the debt of Pyarelal was outstanding against Umrao Singh alone. On appeal by the vendees, the same judgment was upheld, and they have preferred this second appeal.