(SHEIKH) MAHOMAD Vs. PANDURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the non-applicant (decree-holder) obtained a decree in Civil Suit No. 379 of 1927 on 22nd June 1927 against Sheikh Nur and Sheikh Hayat. He attached in execution of that decree fields Section Nos. 40, 69 (half-share) and 210 (one-third share) and houses situated at Dhanki as the property of the judgment-debtors. Against this attachment the objector, brother of the judgment-debtors, filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, on the contentions that the judgment-debtors had transferred their shares on partition by a souda-chitthi dated 10th January 1927 and subsequent sale-deeds dated 13th January 1927. These sale-deeds were said to be for consideration, and his story is that he is in exclusive possession of the above property as owner from 10th January 1927.

(2.) THE decree-holder admitted that the objector had a one-third joint share in the attached property and asked that that share be released. The partition set up was denied by the decree-holder and the sale-deeds were said to be bogus, fraudulent and executed with intent to defeat the claim of the creditors-of the decree-holders.

(3.) THE words of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Prasad [1888] 15 Gal. 521, are pertinent in these cases. They state: