CR No. 8074 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8074 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 10.12.2010 Satnam Singh ......petitioner vs. Manju Rani and ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 25.11.2010 whereby objections filed by the petitioner to the execution of an Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 19.3.2008 was dismissed. The claimants-Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the compensation on account of injuries suffered by the deceased Iqbal Mohammad who died on 12.1.2004. In the said petition, Gurnam Singh was impleaded as respondent No. 2 as owner of the offending motor cycle. In the said claim petition, Gurnam Singh contested the claim petition and alleged that he has transferred the motor cycle in favour of Mohinder Singh who was impleaded as respondent No. 2-A. Learned trial Court allowed the claim petition. The operative part of the Award is reproduced below: - In view of the findings of this Tribunal returned on the issues CR No. 8074 of 2010 -2- under adjudication, the claim petition is allowed with costs. The claimants are awarded compensation amount of Rs. 8,21,440/- only (Rs. Eight lacs, twenty one thousand, four hundred and forty only) in equal shares along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount and respondents Sudesh Kumar @ Desa and Gurnam Singh are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation amount although the first charge shall always be with respondent No. 2 Gurnam Singh, the owner of the offending motor cycle. The claim against Mohinder Singh, respondent No. 2-A is dismissed. The counsel's fee is assessed at Rs. 1100/- only. Memo of costs be prepared and the file be consigned to the records. Earlier, the petitioner field a revision petition before this Court against the order of attachment in pursuance of the order dated 23.8.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The petitioner withdrew the said petition with liberty to file the objections. It is the said objection which has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the family settlement, he has got the land, the subject matter of attachment. To recognize such family settlement, registered gift deed was executed by Gurnam Singh in his favour on 17.12.2004. Thus, he is the owner in possession of the land in his own right and the said land cannot be sold in execution of a decree passed against Gurnam Singh. Learned Executing Court has considered the said contention and found that the plea of the petitioner is not tenable. It is held that the CR No. 8074 of 2010 -3- transfer of land suffers from lis pendence as it has been effected during the pendency of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the doctrine of lis pendence is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the property was not the subject matter of the dispute, therefore, the findings recorded by learned Executing Court are not tenable. Though, the said argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has merit but on the facts pleaded by petitioner himself, I find that the execution of a gift deed on 17.12.2004 by Gurnam Singh is a fraudulent document within the meaning of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 executed with the intent to defeat the rights of the creditors. The accident involving the motor cycle owned by Gurnam Singh occurred on 12.1.2004. The petitioner is claiming title on the basis of the Gift deed dated 17.12.2004 i.e. after the accident. Since it is the gift deed, obviously it is without consideration. The petitioner has asserted that he is a member of the Joint Hindu family and therefore he has a right in the said land by birth. It is case of the petitioner that the land was purchased by Gurnam Singh. If the land is purchased by Gurnam Singh, therefore, the brother such as the petitioner cannot be a member of a Joint Hindu family. Only lineal male descendants are the members of Joint Hindi family. The plea of joint Hindu family is patently untenable and has been rightly not believed by learned Executing Court. Gurnam Singh executed the gift deed keeping in view the anticipated Award on account of accident which led to filing of claim petition. Such gift deed will not defeat the rights of the CR No. 8074 of 2010 -4- creditors as it has been executed to defeat the rights of creditors. In view of the said fact, the order dismissing the objections passed by the learned Executing Court is maintained but for the reasons other than those recorded by the Learned Executing Court. Revision is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10.12.2010 preeti