KIRAN BALA versus SURINDER KUMAR

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 02-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KIRAN BALA 
A 
v. 
SURINDER KUMAR 
MAY 2, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS. JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
S.60(J)(ccc)-Residential House in occupation of judgment-debt-
or-Exemption from attachment or sale in execution proceedings-Jn execu-
C 
tion of decree in a money suit, residential house of judgment-debtor situated 
in State of Punjab was sought to be attached and sold-Objection of judg-
ment-debtor on the plea of protection under the State Amendment of the 
provision resisted by decree holder on the ground that the house had been 
subjected to transfer even though such transfer had been held "null and void" 
in another suit, and, therefore, by virtue of the conduct of the judgment-debtor, · D 
she was not entitled to the protection-Held, the effect of dee/ming the sale 
null and void would be that the judgment-debtor got a negative declaration 
that she continued to be the owner-in-possession of the house and as such, 
she would be entitled to claim exemption from attachment or sale-Objection 
of judgment-debtor is sustained with the result that the house can not be E 
attached or put to sale in execution of the decree. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7794 OF 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.95 of the Punjab & Haryana F 
High Court in C.R. 'No. 1744 of 1995. 
Mrs. Rekha Palli and Atul Sharma for the Appellants. 
S.K. Bagga, Mrs. Shurestha Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga and Ms. Monika 
Bhanot for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal arises against an order of limine dismissal of a revision rI 
277 
A 
13 
c 
D 
E 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
petition passed by the Punjab and 1-!aryana High Court. 
The appellant, Kiran Bala, faced more than one suit for recovery of 
monies in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Dhuri, Punjab. 
Civil Suit No. 636 of 6.8.1991 was file" by the plaintiff-respondent against 
her in order to recover Rs. 19,125 inclusive of interest. Apprehending that 
she may not alienate her property the plaintiff-respondent obtained on 
24.7.1991 an order of maintenance of status quo. Despite the said order, 
the appellant on 29.7.1991 sold her residential house in iavuur of her 
daughter and her hushand's brother for a sum of Rs. 20,:JOO mentioning in 
the sale-deed the necessity of selling it to pay of her debts. This develop-
ment got entangled in the suit and was put to issue. Specifically bsue No.3 
raised was tu the following effect : 
"Whether the sale deed dated 29.3.1991 executed by defendant No. 
l in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 to defeat and delay the claim 
of the creditors including plaintiff'! 
The findin~ recorded by the Court was that the transfer was hit by 
the provisions of Section SJ of the Transf~r of Property Act, being a 
fraudulent transfer as the 'ame had been effected to defeat and delay the 
claim of the creditor-plaintiff. The sale thus ha\ing been avoided, was 
declared null and void by the Trial Court vide order dated 29.7.1994. The 
suit otherwise was decreed in the sum of Rs. 19.125 with costs and future 
interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of the ~uit tiU realisation. 
For the m"ne)" liability incurred hy the appellant in another 'uit, 
cxei.:ution pi.::.tition was file.d by the decree-holder plaintiff-respondent an<l 
F 
the house, transfer uf which had been declared 'null and void' in <leci.<:.iun 
in C.S. No. 636 of 6.8.1991, was sought tu be attached and sold in execution 
of the decree. To that, objection was rai,ed by the appellant-judgment 
debtor that tht• said house \Va!-. her main residential house in her occupation 
and was not specifically charged with the debts sought lo he recovered. lt 
was pleaded that these facts entitled the appellant-judgment debtor to 
protection of Section W(l )( ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as ap· 
plicable to the Stak of Punjab by State Amendment, which does afford 
such protection. Such claim of the appellant a~ to the houst: in quei-.tiun 
bcinv L-xempt fron1 attachmi.::nt or sale, was resisted hy the decree~hulder 
H 
on the 5.pecious plea that it had been subjected to !ransf~r~ even lhough 
such transfer had been held 'null and void' in C.S. Nu. 636 dated 6.8.1991, 
KIRAN BALA v. SU RIND ER KUMAR 
279 
and therefore on account of her conduct, the appellant was not entitled to A 
any relief. This defence apparently found favour with the Executing Court 
on attention be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.