RSA No.801 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.801 of 2008 Date of Decision:04.05.2010 M/s Ramesh Kumar, Ved Parkash Commission Agents, Abohar .... appellant Versus Gopal Dass & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 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.Ashok Kumar Khunger,Advocate for the appellant None for respondent No.3. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that sale deed dated 03.04.2000 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by which ownership of land was fraudulently transferred in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by defendant No.3 with intention to defraud and defeat the rights of the plaintiff-firm as creditor and the same was illegal and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff for recovery of amount payable by defendant No.3, was decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, plaintiff-firm filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,65,000/- against defendant No.3 on 21.01.2002 which was pending in the court of Civil Judge(Junior Division), Abohar. It was further alleged that defendant No.3 in order to avoid the payment of the aforesaid amount maliciously and intentionally transferred the ownership of his entire land in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on RSA No.801 of 2008 2 03.04.2000 with the intention of defrauding the appellant and to defeat his rights. Hence this suit. Upon notice, the suit was contested by the respondents. It was averred that defendant No.3 had already cleared his accounts with the appellant-firm and no reliance can be placed on the entries according to which a balance has been shown against him and he was not to repay any amount to the appellant. The sale of the land was admitted but it was pleaded that defendant No.3 had sold his own land within his own rights and was competent to sell the same. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. I have perused the impugned judgment and decrees. The plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the sale deed dated 03.04.2000 was made by respondent No.3,fraudulently, in order to defeat the recovery of the payment of dues of the appellant for which civil suit was pending. However, in spite of the aforesaid pleadings, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be held that the impugned sale dated 03.04.2000 made by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was fraudulent as alleged by the appellant. Moreover, no recovery right of the appellant has crystalized so far against defendant No.3. Neither, there were any interim directions in the suit for attachment of property of respondent No.3 in favour of the appellant. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 04.05.2010 neenu