IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.10.2008 Charan Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus Balbir Kaur & others. ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. M.S. Lobana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 titled Charan Kaur Versus Balbir Kaur & others and Civil Revision No. 1392 of 2007 titled Kuldeep Singh Versus Balbir Kaur & others, as they arise out of one and the same order passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dasuya as affirmed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur. For brevity facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 titled Charan Kaur Versus Balbir Kaur & others Smt. Balbir Kaur filed objections against auction of her land in pursuance to the decree passed against Parlad Singh son of Sh. Bhagat Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) -2- Singh. The objections were preferred under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside auction proceedings and restoration of possession of plot No. 31. The objections were accepted and Kuldip Singh, the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1392 of 2007 was directed to hand over vacant possession to the objector Smt. Balbir Singh. Smt. Charan Kaur was directed to return the auction money to Sh. Kuldip Singh. Objector Balbir Kaur claimed that she is the owner of plot No. 31 situated at village Urmur (Fauji Colony ) tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur. Late Sh.Bhagat Singh was owner in possession of the aforesaid plot, which was sold to her vide sale deed dated 18.4.1995. It was claimed that Smt. Charan Kaur decree-holder had made an attempt to get the sale deed executed from late Sh. Bhagat Singh original owner of the plot in respect of plot in question on 22.8.1991 under the garb of decree dated 25.10.1983. The said decree was not against late Sh. Bhagat Singh. It is the case of the objector that objections having been raised by Sh. Bhagat Singh the sale deed was not registered by Sub Registrar, Tanda. The objector claimed that in the execution application the decree-holder by deceiving the Court got order of attachment dated 25.7.1990 wrongly and illegally passed in respect of the plot in dispute. The said order of attachment was challenged by late Sh. Bhagat Singh by raising an objection that no decree against him was passed. In the revision petition, this Court vide order dated 1.2.1991 set aside the order of attachment. The Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) -3- decree-holder chose not to file any fresh list of property of Parlad Singh judgment debtor but she got the execution application moved by her dismissed on 2.12.1994. After the property was detached, late Sh. Bhagat Singh sold the property in dispute to present objector Balbir Kaur vide sale deed dated 18.4.1995 and put her in actual physical possession of the plot. The decree-holder did not get the execution application restored but preferred the fresh execution application and again got attached plot No. 31 at the back of the objector. The decree-holder even got the same sold in auction and Kuldip Singh the auction purchaser got possession of the plot in dispute being auction purchaser. The objector Balbir Kaur challenged the auction proceedings as well as auction on the plea that she was the owner of the plot in dispute and not Parlad Singh the judgment debtor. The decree-holder questioned the objection petition by taking a preliminary objection that the objection petition was not maintainable as she did not have any locus standi to file the objection petition. The plea of estoppel against her was also raised. It was claimed that the sale deed dated 18.4.1995 is a forged and fabricated document and did not pertain to the disputed plot. It was claimed that the sale deed was got executed by Parlad Singh the judgment debtor to create hindrance and to hamper the execution proceedings as the possession of the property had already been taken over. On merits a plea was taken that the Court was not deceived. It Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) -4- was claimed that the proceedings were carried out legally. The issues were framed and parties were allowed to lead evidence on the objections filed by the objector. The objector proved on record the sale deed dated 18.4.1995 as Ex. O-1. The extract of entries in the scribe register were also placed on record as Ex. O-2. The Deed Writer proved the writing of the sale deed produced on record and in support thereof he produced the extract from his register. The copy of the Sanad allotment in favour of late Sh. Bhagat Singh as well as certificate were also produced on record. The petitioner examined Jarnail Singh, Patwari. The learned executing Court allowed the objections by holding that the sale in favour of the auction purchaser is liable to be set aside and possession is liable to be returned to the objector. It was also held that the decree-holder was liable to refund the amount to auction purchaser. Whereas objection with regard to the locus standi of the objector was also decided against the decree-holder. The decree-holder as well as the auction purchaser preferred two separate appeals, which were consolidated and disposed of by a common order. The learned lower appellate Court had affirmed the findings recorded by the learned executing Court and, thus, dismissed both the appeals. Mr. M.S. Lobana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner impugned the orders under challenge by alleging that the petitioner is victim of injustice as all efforts for recovery of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded to her by the Civil Court for murder of her son have Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) -5- failed and the judgment debtor Parlad Singh in connivance with his father Bhagat Singh and his brother Dukh Bhajan Singh has been successful in delaying the execution proceedings with one objection or the other. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot was got attached but no objections were raised to the attachment by Bhagat Singh or any of his sons or spouse and thus the sale was affirmed. It was claimed that the objections by the objector Balbir Kaur were not competent as the sale deed executed in her favour was a fictitious document as no sale consideration was passed on and, in fact, the sale deed was executed to defeat the rights of the decree-holder. The learned counsel for the petitioner also challenged the findings of the learned Courts below holding therein that the ownership of the judgment debtor over the plot in question was not established. The main plank of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Balbir Kaur is the wife of the brother of judgment debtor and the sale deed records the total consideration having been paid to Bhagat Singh prior to registration of the sale deed. It has thus to be presumed that it is a fictitious document prepared to defeat the rights of the decree-holder. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that once it is held that the sale deed is null and void, the objector would have no locus standi to challenge the auction as she would have no concern with the plot. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Without Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) -6- referring to other reasons it may be noticed that the attachment of this very plot in execution of decree against Parlad Singh was ordered to be set aside. In spite of orders of this Court the decree-holder again chose to get the said very plot attached for the reasons best known to her, therefore, the allegations of the objector that the Court was misled are not without basis. It may also be noticed that the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the locus standi is that the sale deed is a fictitious document as no sale consideration has passed on before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The objector proved on record the ownership of late Bhagat Singh as well as transfer of plot in her favour by way of registered sale deed which stood duly proved. The transfer cannot be said to be fictitious transfer as late Bhagat Singh was not a judgment debtor and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plot has been transferred in order to defeat the rights of the decree-holder as is claimed by the petitioner. The non-payment of consideration is not a question which can be agitated by the petitioner once the vendor and the vendee accepted the transaction before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. The said assertion could not be challenged by the petitioner unless some interest of party raising objections disclosed in the property so transferred. Admittedly, the petitioner-decree-holder has not claimed any right in the said plot and the right of late Sh.Bhagat Singh to transfer the Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) -7- plot in his ownership either by way of sale deed or any other means cannot be subject matter of challenge, as he was absolute owner of the said plot. The learned Courts below, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that Balbir Kaur objector was the owner of the plot in dispute and there was no decree or judgment against her which could entitle the executing Court to attach and sell her property. The learned Courts, therefore, rightly allowed the objection petition. The orders passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, do not call for any interference. No merit. Dismissed. 22.10.2008 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2007 (O&M) -8-