The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Second Appeal No.1419 of 2011 Date: 16-12-2011 Between: Gajjela Naga Laxmi ..... Appellant AND Samula Srinivas Reddy and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.V.Raghu Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following : Order: This Second appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 25-07-2011, in AS.No.36 of 2010, on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court) Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree, dated 14-06-2010, in EA.No.71 of 2009 in EP.No.62 of 2009 in OS.No.12 of 2003. I have heard Sri V.Raghu, learned Counsel for the appellant, and perused the record. Respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.12 of 2003 for recovery of certain amount on the basis of a promissory note executed by respondent No.2. The suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1. The said decree has attained finality. As respondent No.2 failed to pay the decretal amount, respondent No.1 has filed E.P.No.62 of 2009 for sale of the EP Schedule property. Pending the said EP, the appellant, who is the daughter of respondent No.2, filed claim petition vide EA.No.71 of 2009 on the plea that her father has executed a registered gift deed, dated 01-10- 2002, in respect of a part of the EP schedule property, in her favour. The trial Court has allowed the said application by holding that, as respondent No.2, who is the judgment debtor, has executed a gift deed in favour of the appellant, the sale of the property covered by the said gift deed is not sustainable. The lower appellate Court, however, reversed the said judgment in the appeal filed by respondent No.1. A perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court shows that it has accepted the plea of the respondent No.1- decree holder that the universal donee, being the legal representative of the donor, takes the estate of the donor, subject to his liabilities. It has held that under Section 125 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act’), liability is fastened on the universal donee in respect of all debts due by the donor at the time of gift though such liability is confined only to the extent of the properties comprised in the gift. The lower appellate Court placed reliance on a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Quseph Skaria of Naduvilaparambil and others vs. Cherian Joseph of Pooppallil and others[1], wherein the Court has raised an inference to the effect that the gift deed was executed with intent to make the properties unavailable to the plaintiff and to the other creditors. In my opinion, the view taken by the lower appellate Court conforms to the settled legal position as reflected in Act. Admittedly, the subject property was gifted to the appellant after respondent No.2 (judgment debtor) has executed promissory note in favour of the appellant. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that, in order to defeat the claim of the creditor i.e., respondent No.1, respondent No.2 has executed the gift deed in favour of respondent No.1. If such gifts are held valid and binding, the borrowers are likely to defraud the creditors by transferring the properties under gifts after borrowing the money. Obviously, in order to prevent such acts, Section 125 of the Act is incorporated. In the above set of facts, I do not find any error of law in the judgment of the lower appellate Court and consequently, I do not find any substantial questions of law arising in the Second Appeal. On the analysis as above, the Second Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, SAMP.No.3178 of 2011, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 16th December, 2011 LUR [1] AIR 1965 Kerala 288 (Vol.52, C.104)