IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 521 of 2000 Date of Decision: 8th October, 2010 Soni and others Appellants Versus Harbansi Devi and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the defendants’ Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the two courts below have misread and mis- appreciated the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led in the present case” 2. Defendant No.1 Soni Lal and defendant No.2 Ram Lal owned certain immovable properties in Village Barnoh, Tehsil and District Una. They also owned vehicle (truck) No. HPH-141. The truck met with an accident on 19.4.1987 in which Shri Dilabar Chand, husband of plaintiff Harbansi Devi and father 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? of minor plaintiffs Urmila Devi and Rajni Bal expired. In a claim petition filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a sum of Rs.1,11,000/- was awarded in favour of the plaintiffs as against defendants No.1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the award passed in favour of the plaintiffs has attained finality. However, before the claim petition could be adjudicated, by way of gift defendants No.1 and 2 transferred their immovable property in favour of their wives Smt. Sawaranjit and Kiran Devi, defendants No.3 and 4, respectively. This was allegedly done with the intention of depriving the plaintiffs of getting the award executed. These gift deeds were challenged by plaintiffs by filing a Civil Suit, in which following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the gift deed dated 8.1.1997 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 is a sham transaction, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the truck in question has been taken over by the financers in view of the finance scheme as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is barred by law? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 2 3. In terms of judgment and decree dated 10.2.1995 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class (Court No.2), Una, H.P., plaintiffs’ suit stands decreed in the following terms:- “ In view of my findings on issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. A decree for declaration to the effect that the defendants No.1 and 2 are the owners of the suit land measuring 11 Kanals 9 Marlas detailed in the head-note of the plaint and the gift deed dated 8.6.1987 executed by them in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 is fictitious one made with an intention to deprive the plaintiffs of the fruits of the compensation awarded in their favour vide order dated 3.12.1988 is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with no order as to costs. A decree sheet be drawn accordingly.” 4. Aggrieved of the same, defendants filed an appeal which stands dismissed in terms of impugned judgment and decree dated 28.6.2000, passed by District Judge, Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 39/1995. 5. Thus by way of concurrent findings of fact, Courts below have held the execution of the gift deed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of their wives being defendants No.3 and 4 respectively, as sham. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration at all. 7. Importantly only defendant No.3 appeared in the witness box as DW-1. Defendants’ plea that gift deed was executed in lieu of ornaments taken by them from their wives does 3 not stand proved. Except for the bald statement of defendant No.3, there is nothing on record to show that the wives had advanced any sum to their husbands as loan. The date of loan and the amount is also not proved on record nor even paper transaction has been proved. Undisputedly gift deed was executed after the accident in question took place. The award has attained finality and needs to be executed. 8. There is nothing on record to show as to how the Courts below have either misread or misappreciated the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. Consequently, the present appeal without any merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8th October, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge. 4