KHANNA AND HARI RAJ Vs. VISHNU DATT
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
KHANNA AND HARI RAJ
Click here to view full judgement.
Shamsher Bahadur, J. -
(1.) The defendants appellants, Messrs. Khanna and Hari Raj, obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs. 6,876-6-0, from the Bombay City Civil Court on 14th of September 1951, against Shiv Datta, defendant No. 2. Five days later, on 19th of September 1951, a reference was made to arbitration by the judgment debtor and his tow brothers, Vishnu Datt plaintiff and Uma Datt, to Shri Mohinder Lal Chopra Advocate for partition of joint properties inherited from their father Gujar Mal. An award was made on the same day by the Arbitrator whereby the property in suit valued at Rs. 10,000/- was allotted to the plaintiff-respondent, Vishnu Datt, another property valued for the same sum was allotted to Uma Datt and the remaining nine properties at Naru Nangal and Jullundur, also valued at Rs. 10,000 to the judgment debtor, Shiv Datt. In execution of their decree, Messrs. Khanna and Hari Raj attached one-third portion of the suit property, which is a house in Jullundur, on the ground that the judgment-debtor was the owner in it to the extent of one third share. Objections were filed by Vishnu Datt against this attachment under Order 21, Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These objections were disallowed on 11th of April 1953, and thereafter the suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted under Rule 63 of Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure, on 28th of November, 1953. To complete the narration of events, it may be mentioned that the suit property was first purchased by Narinjan Dass, defendant No. 3, in auction sale which was later cancelled and it was then sold to Major Bishan Chand Bhalla, defendant No. 4, for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-.
(2.) The suit was resisted both by the decree-holder and the auction purchaser and the following issues were framed :
(1) Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the full house in dispute under a valid partition with his brother ?
(2) In case issue No. (1) is proved, whether the said partition is fictions, collusive and fraudulent, and what is its effect ? (3) Relief.
(3.) The trial Judge has found both the substantive issues in favour of the plaintiff and has decreed the suit. This appeal has been filed by the decree- holder and the auction purchaser.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.