CIVIL REVISION NO.5777 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 04, 2008 Jagdev Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS Harjeet Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The objection petition filed by the petitioner before the executing Court stands dismissed. She has impugned the said order by filing the present revision petition under Section 115 CPC. On 25.7.1990, Harjit Singh and Shamsher Singh filed a suit for specific performance against Amrik Singh. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 17.12.1994. The appeal filed by said Harjit Singh and Shamsher Singh was allowed. Present petitioner, Jagdev Kaur, wife of Amrik Singh was also party before the appellate Court. Defendant Amrik Singh was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs. Present petitioner, Jagdev CIVIL REVISION NO.5777 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Kaur, and her husband Amrik Singh filed a Regular Second Appeal before this Court, which was partly accepted. Decree of specific performance was set-aside and alternative decree for Rs.5 lacs was passed in favour of the respondents. The respondents impugned the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the order passed by this Court in the Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, the decree passed by the District Judge became final. It is, thus, the respondents filed an execution application where the petitioner filed objection petition, claiming that the suit was filed by Harjit Singh on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by Amrik Singh. The petitioner claims that she was not party to this agreement and was also not impleaded as defendant in the original suit. She accordingly pleads that this decree can not be enforced against her. The petitioner now claims herself to be owner of the property in dispute. Though she admits that she was made as a party in the appeal by the decree holder, but says that it is not sufficient. The petitioner is claiming ownership o the suit property by way of family settlement, which, according to her, had fallen to her share. She also relies upon a judgment and decree passed in her favour in civil suit No.121 dated 6.4.1991 decided on 26.7.1991. According to the petitioner, on the basis of this decree, mutation has also been sanctioned in her favour. On the basis of these facts, she pleads that the decree passed by the District Judge, Patiala, is not executable. In response to the objections filed by the petitioner, CIVIL REVISION NO.5777 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: respondent-decree holders plead that the petitioner has no concern with the suit land. Submission is that she was well aware of the decree of specific performance passed in favour of the respondents and against Amrik Singh, who is none other than her husband. It is accordingly pleaded that the objections are absolutely false and deserve to be dismissed. From the respective stands of the parties, it is seen that the petitioner had raised three fold objections in her objection petition. She firstly pleads that the petitioner was not a party to the agreement and also not a party to the suit for specific performance. She further pleads that she is now in exclusive ownership of the property, which stands vested in her in view of the decree passed in the year 1991 on the basis of a family settlement. On the other hand, the respondents would plead with some justification that the petitioner is trying to misuse the process of law by raising frivolous objections. They have further justified in submitting that the petitioner being wife of judgment debtor, Amrik Singh, was bound to be aware of the pending proceedings between the parties. Though she may not have been a party to the agreement but she was impleaded as a party in the suit at an appellate stage. It is also pointed out that she herself had preferred an appeal before this Court and as such, she can not plead ignorance about pending litigation and the decree that has now sought to be enforced. The respondents would also take serious objection to the collusive decree passed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1991 during the pendency of the suit for specific CIVIL REVISION NO.5777 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: performance. The respondents justifiably submit that this is nothing but an act to defraud the decree holders by J.D. Amrik Singh. According to the respondents, the doctrine of lis-pendens would come to their rescue and transfers made during the pendency of the suit would be bound by the decision in the litigation, which is pending. The relationship between J.D. Amrik Singh and the petitioner is not denied. It is, thus, not difficult to understand that the real purpose of the petitioner-objector is to harass the decree holder or to avoid the execution of a decree by one way or the other. Every effort is being made to defeat/frustrate the decree, which the respondents have been able to obtain by going up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decree obtained by the petitioner on the basis of a family settlement can not bind the respondents as they are not a party to the same. A point of interest, which may require a notice here, is that the respondents had filed an application in the original suit for impleading the petitioner as a party. This application of the respondents was opposed by her husband, J.D. Amrik Singh and she could not be impleaded because of this reason. While declining this prayer of the respondents, the Court has observed vide its order dated 17.12.1994 that alienation, if any made, would be hit by the rule of lis-pendens and the order shall be executable against petitioner, Jagdev Kaur also. It is further distressing to notice that J.D. Amrik Singh defied the interim order despite the stay order granted on 5.7.1990, whereby he had been restrained from alienating CIVIL REVISION NO.5777 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: or transferring the suit land in any manner. Ignoring this interim order, J.D. Amrik Singh conveniently admitted the claim of his wife, objector Jagdev Kaur in a suit, leading to decree in her favour in the year 1991. This action can but be termed as a fraud by the petitioner and her husband, J.D. Amrik Singh. The decree passed in favour of the objector-petitioner in the year 1991, being collusive, may also require registration and in the absence thereof would not lead to creating any right in favour of the objector. In this regard reference can be made to the cases of Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 1996 SC 196, Balbir Singh Vs. Bant Singh, 1996 (3) RCR (Civil) 351 and Harbhajan Singh Vs. Sarup Singh, 1993 (2) RRR 185. The manner in which the petitioner and her husband have acted to frustrate the relief granted in favour of the respondents just can not be appreciated. The executing Court has rightly observed that this is an attempt only to prolong litigation and needs to be checked. Amrik Singh, husband of the petitioner, was specifically restrained from alienating or transferring the suit land in any manner during the pendency of the suit vide order dated 5.7.1990. He still suffered a decree on 26.7.1991 on the basis of family settlement. This is a clear case of open defiance and dis-obedience of the order passed by a Court of law. This decree could not have competently been made. This still will not bind the present decree holder- respondent Harjit Singh in any manner. This may be bound between Amrik Singh and Jagdev Kaur. They are husband and wife. Jagdev Kaur, present petitioner, may be entitled to claim some damages CIVIL REVISION NO.5777 OF 2007 :{ 6 }: from Amrik Singh but can not defeat the rights of the respondents. It would be too much and ask for the respondents to seek setting-aside of the decree in favour of the petitioner, which has been passed in violation of the injunction/restrained order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The same line of reasoning was advanced before me as was done before the executing Court that the decree in favour of the respondents is not executable one. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made reference to the case of Durga Prasad and another Vs. Deep Chand and others, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 75 to say that what types of decrees, in such a situation, are to be made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has made some observations on the basis where there is a sale of some property in favour of a prior and subsequent transferee. It is noticed that in cases where subsequent transferee paid the purchase money to the vendor, then in a suit for specific performance brought by a prior transferee, in case he succeeds, the question arises as to the proper form of decree in such a case. It is observed that practice of the Courts in India has not been uniform and there are three distinct lines of thought, which would emerge. According to one point of view, the proper form of a decree is to declare a subsequent purchaser as void as against the prior transferee. Second is to make both vendor and vendee join with a third to limit execution of conveyance to the subsequent purchaser alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, went on to observe that the proper form of a decree is to direct CIVIL REVISION NO.5777 OF 2007 :{ 7 }: specific performance of a contract between the vendor and the prior transferee and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title, which resides in him to the prior transferee. These observations would apply to those cases where there are genuine persons on whose names the property stand transferred. The facts in the present case are entirely different context. Here there is no genuine prior purchaser, which can defeat the right of the respondents to execute decree of specific performance ordered in his favour. There is serious doubt not only in regard to the decree in favour of the objector but the same has been made in her favour in violation of the stay order passed against her husband. The ratio of law as laid down in Durga Prasad's case (supra) in regard to a form of decree, as such, would not apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has certainly not approached the Court with clean hands. She does not deserve any legal or sympathetic consideration. The conduct of the petitioner is nothing but to play a fraud with the Court, which needs to be checked. The objection petition filed by the petitioner deserves rejection and was rightly rejected by the executing Court. This collusion between husband and wife can not be permitted to defeat the rights of the respondents. It is high time that their conduct is checked and brought to an end. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. January 04, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE