IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.07.2010 C.R.No.4566 of 2010 Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Kamaljit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 14.6.2010, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner to the execution of the Award against the property gifted to him vide gift deed dated 11.8.1999, were dismissed. The claimant-respondents have filed an application for claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 21.08.1998. Jia Lal, the father of the present petitioner was impleaded as owner of the offending vehicle. During the pendency of the proceedings for determination of compensation, the father of the petitioner executed a gift deed on 11.8.1999 in respect of his property in the form of present petition. It is the said property against which the Tribunal is proceeding to execute the Award and that the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The learned Executing Court has dismissed the objections after holding that such transfer of property is to defeat the rights of the decree holders. It has been further noticed that the shop as well as the plot C.R.No.4566 of 2010 continued to be reflected in the name of Jia Lal, the judgment-debtor on the date, when the same were attached. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act’), claimants cannot be said to be a creditor, which may entitled the claimants to seek a declaration that the transfer by way of gift is fraudulent within the meaning of Section 53 of the Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. Section 53 of the Act contemplates that every transfer of immoveable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed. The argument that the claimants were not creditors on the date of gift deed will not render the claimants as non-creditors, as the intention of transfer was to avoid the Award of compensation, which was pending at the instance of the claimants. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 27.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2