SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of Shiv Charan Dass (defendant No. 1 in the suit) against part of the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1981, passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby suit of Surat Singh (plaintiff No. 3) with regard to 20 kanals 16 marls of land out of 53 kanals 18 marlas of land has been decreed and he has been declared owner in possession of the said land, which has been held to be not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree passed in civil suit titled Shiv Charan Pass v. Parma Nand.
(2.) IN order to appreciate and adjudicate the points raised by Daya Kishan, one of the legal representatives of appellant Shiv Charan Dass, who has appeared in person, it will be appropriate to briefly state the facts of the case. In the present case, Parma Nand son of Thakur Dass (defendant No. 2 in the suit) was the owner of the land in question measuring 53 kanals 18 marlas. One Lala Ram son of Mangat Ram obtained a money decree of Rs. 1,400/- against Parma Nand on 13.2.1963. During the pendency of the said suit, Parma Nand gifted 23 kanals 4 marlas in favour of Surat Singh (plaintiff No. 3 in the suit) by a gift deed dated 9.1.1962, which was presented for registration on 10.1.1962 and was got actually registered on 25.3.1963, after the decision of the aforesaid suit. After obtaining the aforesaid money decree, Lala Ram filed execution application. In that execution application, initially, the total land measuring 53 kanals 18 marlas was attached on 19.3.1963. Plaintiff No. 3 Surat Singh filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. against the attachment of 23 kanals 4 marlas, which was gifted to him by Parma Nand. Those objections were dismissed on 30.4.1966. Thereafter, in July, 1966, Surat Singh filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 347 of 1966) under Order 21 Rule 63 C.P.C., against decree holder Lala Ram and judgment debtor Parma Nand. The said suit was decreed on 16.8.1967, vide judgment and decree Ex. P6 and Ex. P7 and it was held that the gifted land was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the aforesaid money decree. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed by Surat Singh, defendant Shiv Charan Dass purchased the said money decree from Lala Ram vide decree dated 4.1.1967. Thereafter, he moved an application before the Executing Court, where execution of the money decree was pending, for recognizing him as transferee decree holder. The said application was allowed vide order dated 24.2.1968 (Ex.D2). The said order read as under : "In view of the written statement of Lala Ram original DH and from the perusal of the copy judgment dated 4.1.67 in a declaratory suit by Shiv Charan Dass against Lala Ram, Parma Nand, Shiv Charan Dass petitioner is declared to be the decree holder of this decree under execution in place of Lala Ram. Entry to this effect be made in the register No. 1. The application be filed as unsatisfied."
(3.) IT is mentioned here that initially, the suit land was attached on 19.3.1963 and at one point of time, the execution application filed by Lala Ram was dismissed as unsatisfied, vide order dated 22.5.1965 (Ex.D3). Subsequently, Parma Nand mortgaged 33 kanals 2 marlas of land in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 vide mortgage deed dated 28.7.1970. There was a condition in the mortgage that in case the mortgagor failed to redeem the mortgaged land within one year, then it will become absolute sale. Parma Nand did not pay the mortgage consideration within the stipulated period. Thereafter, an application was filed by plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 under Section 8 of the Regulation No. 7 of 1806 against Parma Nand in the court of District Judge, Rohtak and the said application was decided in their favour on 27.3.1973. Thereafter, defendant Shiv Charan Dass applied for execution of the money decree by getting the suit land sold on the allegation that it was attached on 19.3.1963 and the said attachment was still intact. The plaintiffs filed objections to the said application praying that the suit land be not sold in execution of the decree. Their objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 25.1.1975 (Ex. P8).;