Civil Revision No.1031 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1031 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision 25.08.2009 Gurnam Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Sucha Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.2000, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bathinda, whereby the executing Court accepted the objection petition filed by the respondents-judgment debtors (herein referred as 'the respondents') and dismissed the execution application of the petitioner-plaintiff/decree-holder (herein referred as 'the petitioner'). Factual background of the case is that the petitioner had obtained a decree in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against Sucha Singh son of Kehar Singh, resident of village Jeon Singh Wala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, from the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 17.09.1993. The judgment attained finality, consequently, he filed execution for recovery of the said amount. The protest petition was lodged by the respondents Balbir Kaur, Civil Revision No.1031 of 2001 2 Harcharan Singh and Baldev Singh wife and sons of the respondent Sucha Singh respectively stating that the land sought to be attached in the execution has been transferred in their names vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.1988, therefore, the said land could not be attached. Decree holder contested the objection petition stating that the decree dated 11.05.1988, being the result of collusion, is not binding upon the decree holder, consequently the mutation No.3419 sanctioned on the basis of the said judgment and decree is also illegal null and void. Since the land was earlier recorded in the name of Sucha Singh and now shown in the name of Balbir Kaur, Harcharan Singh and Baldev Singh, therefore, the property as received by the objectors on the death of Sucha Singh is liable to be attached. From pleadings of the parties, the Executing Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.05.1988 has been obtained by Balbir Kaur to defraud the creditors of the JD and thus not binding on the decree holder ? OP-decree holder 2. Relief. The Executing Court after pondering over the issue accepted the objection petition and dismissed the execution petition. While holding that the decree dated 11.05.1988 was passed much prior to the institution of the suit for damages and the land was transferred in the name of Balbir Kaur, Harcharan Singh and Baldev Singh wife and sons of the respondent Sucha Singh prior to the filing of the suit , therefore, the same could not be attached. Civil Revision No.1031 of 2001 3 With due reverence to the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, I am not inclined to approve the findings returned by the executing Court. It may be noticed that decree for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- was passed against Sucha Singh. Balbir Kaur, Harcharan Singh and Baldev Singh, who are the wife and sons of Sucha Singh, therefore, they are bound to honour the decree. In any case, the decree dated 11.05.1988, being collusive was not binding qua the rights of decree holder to recover the amount from the land falling in the hands of respondents No.2 to 4. Even otherwise, while examining the case from anther angle, the collusive decree was suffered by Sucha Singh meaning thereby the property owned by Sucha Singh was received by them. The receipt of the property by the judgment debtors by collusion does not divert the decree holder to recover the money from the said estate which was once in hands of Sucha Singh. In any case, respondents No.2 to 4 are liable to discharge the debts left by Sucha Singh on account of pious obligation. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the case and was moved by a decree suffered by Sucha Singh in collusion with respondents No.2 to 4 which cannot stand the way of Gurnam Singh-petitioner for recovering the decretal amount. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 18.11.2000 is set aside and the executing Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 25.08.2009 mamta-II