RSA No. 3052 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3052 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 Gurtej Singh ......Appellant Versus Jit Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.2 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby sale of 1/7th share of the land measuring 84 bighas 8 biswas was found to be ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff to recover the decretal amount from the said land sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,06,360/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 14.9.2001. The said suit was filed on 16.9.2003. Since the land was sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 on 14.10.2003 after the filing of the present suit, the plaintiff amended the suit so as to claim declaration that the sale by defendant No.1 Karnail Singh in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is a RSA No. 3052 of 2009 (2) fraudulent sale so as to delay and frustrate the decree which may be passed against him. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit though a finding was returned that the pronote and receipt stand executed. However, in appeal, the suit has been decreed holding that the sale in favour of the present appellant is to avoid delay and defeat the execution of the decree. Such finding has been returned in view of the fact that the summons were sent to Karnail Singh for 29.3.2003. There was a report of the process server that Karnail Singh evaded service of summons on 27.9.2003. The sale deed has been executed thereafter on 14.10.2003. The plaintiff has examined one Piara Singh PW4, Lambardar of the village, who has deposed that Karnail Singh told the vendees (defendant Nos. 2 to 4) that he owes some money to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has already filed a suit in this regard. He has not received any summons but the sale deed should be executed and registered without any delay. It was found that the appellant was aware of the suit filed by the plaintiff and that the appellant is not a bona-fide purchaser for value and consideration as the sale has been executed after the filing of the suit for recovery. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has purchased the suit property on the basis of the title of his vendor evident from the revenue record. Such record does not show that there was any encumbrance over the suit property or there was any threat of any decree, which may be granted against Karnail Singh. It is also contended that Karnail Singh-defendant No.1 has appeared as his own witness as DW2, but no suggestion has been put to him that Karnail Singh has told the present appellant that he owes some money RSA No. 3052 of 2009 (3) to the plaintiff and that he has already filed a suit in this regard, therefore, reliance upon the statement of Piara Singh, is not justified. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, but do not find any merit in the present appeal. The circumstances in which the sale deed is purported to have been executed shows the lack of bona- fides on the part of the vendor of the appellant. The suit for recovery was filed on 16.9.2003 i.e., almost a month before the execution of the sale deed by Karnail Singh. The knowledge of such suit is attributed to Karnail Singh on the basis of statement of PW4- Piara Singh, Lambardar. Such statement has been believed by the learned first Appellate Court. Once Karnail Singh was aware of the suit for recovery filed against him, the sale in favour of the present appellant cannot be said to be bona-fide sale. The sale was effected only with a view to defeat and delay the execution of the decree. The argument that no suggestion has been put to Karnail Singh in respect of communication of the pendency of the suit to the present appellant, it is not sufficient to infer any lack of knowledge by Karnail Singh. The learned first Appellate Court has considered the evidence to return a finding of fact that Karnail Singh has knowledge of the suit for recovery filed against him and, therefore, the sale effected on 14.10.2003 is to delay and defeat, the execution of the decree that may be passed against him in the aforesaid suit. The argument that Karnail Singh was owner of only 1/7th share of some parcel of the land measuring 84 bighas 8 biswas and therefore, it cannot be concluded that sale of the land, wherein Karnail Singh has only a share, lacks bona-fide. The learned first Appellate Court has found that the land i.e., 1/7th share of Karnail Singh can be sold to execute the money RSA No. 3052 of 2009 (4) decree against Karnail Singh. It is open to the appellant to satisfy the decree granted in favour of plaintiff-Jeet Singh and to recover the same from Karnail Singh, in accordance with law. It cannot be said that the finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from patent illegality and irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 19.8.2009 ds