SM CHUNNI DEBI Vs. SMANNAPURNA DAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application m revision on behalf, of a claimant whose claim to the attachment of certain property in execution of a money decree has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. The question for consideration is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the claim upon his view that the petitioner was a benamidar.

(2.) The facts are these: Eight annas of village Dabura Khurd was purchased admittedly in the name of the petitioner Chunni Debi, who is the brother's wife of the judgment-debtor. The sale deed shows that this property along with a small plot of land in Deoghar was purchased in her namo for Rs. 5400, the value of the village is worth Rs. 5000 or even more. The judgment-debtor is still joint with his father and brother and their family is heavily encumbered for the last several years. The decree-holder contended in the Court below that in order to defraud the just dues of the decree-holder the judgment-debtors for the last several years have been acquiring properties but the relevant deeds Were always made out in the name of their family relations and they have been making fictitious transfer of their own properties to their family members or their creatures.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge after examining the evidence which was offered on behalf of the decree-holder and the petitioner came to the conclusion that the indebtedness of the judgment-debtors was amply established and that it was impossible for the petitioner to advance Rs. 5400 from her own funds and he refused to believe that the petitioner, a woman of 27 years, with her husband and father-in-law living, would at all think of selling her ornaments in order to purchase this property. He points out that it is curious that neither the claimant; nor her husband, nor any other person who had concern with the family at the time of the purchase of this property has been examined by the claimant. He then points out that three witnesses have been examined on her behalf. The first witness was a servant of the vendor, now said to be a servant of the petitioner. He did not believe him because he could not have any concern with the petitioner's affairs during the sale. The second witness was a raiyat, who said that Chunni Devi was in possession because receipts are granted in her name, but the learned Subordinate Judge did not believe him. The third witness, Ganga Bishun, was merely a servant to prove payment of consideration by Chunni Debi by selling her ornaments. The learned Subordinate Judge did not believe him either. With regard to the collection papers produced, the learned Subordinate Judge observed that "of course they are in her name and they are bound to be so in such a transaction." In the result he gave his finding that the property was actually purchased by the judgment-debtor in the name of Chunni Debi, and therefore disallowed the claim.