RSA No.4044 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4044 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.02.2011 Tilok Chand .....Appellant Versus The Ghoranwali Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd. and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of 864/2848 share of the suit land measuring 142 kanals 8 marlas. Plaintiff placed reliance on the Civil Court decree dated 13.9.1978 passed in his favour by the Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa. The case of the plaintiff further was that mutation had been sanctioned in his favour on the basis of the Civil Court decree. The orders passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rania on review dated 2.10.1991 were illegal, null and void and were not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The subsequent revenue record was also liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff. The order RSA No.4044 of 2008 (O&M) 2 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Ellenabad dated 18.5.1993, order passed by Commissioner Hisar dated 14.1.1999 and order passed by the Financial Commissioner Haryana dated 24.3.1994 were illegal, null and void. The attachment of the suit land by defendant No.4 and sale by auction dated 15.6.1995 in favour of defendant No.3 by defendant no.4 for recovery of alleged amount against defendant No.1 was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The awards dated 18.8.1981 and 26.5.1983 were null and void. Defendant no.1 in his written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant no.3 and 4 in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that defendant No. 1 and 5 were working as Secretary and President of the Society-defendant No.3. The impugned awards were passed against them in a legal manner. Defendants No. 2 and 5 were proceeded ex-parte as they had failed to appear despite service. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land?OPP (2)Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendants no.3 and 4?OPD (3)Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 124 of the Haryana Co-operative Society Act, 1984?OPD (4)Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the RSA No.4044 of 2008 (O&M) 3 matter?OPD (5)Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPP (6)Whether the suit is within time?OPP (7)Relief”. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2003 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It was declared that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land and the order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 2.10.1991, order passed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner confirming the said order was not binding on the plaintiff, The attachment of suit property by defendant No.4 and auction sale dated 15.6.1995 in favour of defendant No.3 by defendant No.4 for recovery of outstanding amount against defendant No.1 were not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.3 preferred an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court Sirsa allowed the appeal filed by defendant No.3 vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2008 and, consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Defendant No.1 Sri Ram is the brother of the plaintiff. Sri Ram- defendant no.1 was working as Secretary with defendant No.3 - Society. During his service tenure, defendant No.1 committed certain embezzlements. The awards were passed against defendant No.1 qua recovery of embezzled amount. The writ petition challenging the said awards was dismissed by this Court. Defendant RSA No.4044 of 2008 (O&M) 4 No.1 had committed alleged embezzlement in the year 1971 onwards. Apparently with a view to escape his liability, defendant No.1 suffered a decree in favour of his brother-plaintiff- Tilok Chand. Since there was no contest qua the decree, mutation was, initially, sanctioned in favour of plaintiff. But later on, the order was reviewed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rania. The suit property was liable to be attached in recovery proceedings as the appellant could not be said to be owner of the suit property on the basis of collusive decree suffered by defendant No.1 in his favour. The learned appellate Court has, thus, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as defendant No.1 cannot be allowed to escape his liability qua recovery in terms of the awards passed against him on the basis of collusive decree suffered by him in favour of his brother. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) February 02,2011 Judge aya