A gift deed executed with the intent to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of the creditor, and a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the attachment of property for the recovery of land revenue arrears if the plaintiff has not deposited the amount of the demand and filed a separate suit for the recovery of the amount paid under protest.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. State of Punjab has filed the present regular second appeal against Shri Tarlochan Lal son of Shri Ram Lal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.10.1979, passed by the Court of District Judge, Patiala, who set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1978, passed by the Sub Judge, 2nd Class, Patiala, who dismissed the suit of Shri Tarlochan Lal for declaration and injunction as prayed for.

2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner. Shri Tarlochan Lal son of Shri Ram Lal, filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the House No. 696 along with Cheubara, as described in the heading of the plaint and situated at Amloh, and that it is not liable to be attached and sold in case of recovery by the Excise Department from the father of the plaintiff, and for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from attaching or selling the aforesaid house and chaubara or interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.

3. The case set up by plaintiff was that he is the owner and in possession of the said house and Cahubara under a registered gift-deed dated 4.11.1968 executed in his favour by his father Shri Ram Lal. In this manner, Shri Ram Lal had no right, title or interest in the said property since 4.11.1968. According to the plaintiff, his father Shri Ram Lal allegedly took some excise contracts at Nabha and some amount was said to be due to the Department from him and that his father was a defaulter. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, ordered for the realisation of the amount due on account of the excise dues from his father and he was attaching and selling the property for the recovery of the excise dues. This action on the part of the defendant No. 2 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff on coming to know that the house is going to be attached and sold in execution of the recovery made a prayer to defendant No. 2 not to attach and sell the property but to no effect In short, the plaintiff alleged that defend ants have no right to attach and sell the said house and as such, the suit should be decreed.

4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants who, filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendants, Ram Lal, father of the plaintiff, was a defaulter in the payment of the licence fee of the country liquor vends which he purchased during the year 1968-69 and he defaulted in the payment of the licence fee totaling Rs. 6,54,998/-. This amount was declared as arrears of land revenue under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Ram Lal, transferred the house in the name of his son Tarlochan Lal through gift deed in order to avoid the payment of the excise department and as such, the transfer of the house is to be ignored under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants also took the stand that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the Civil Court and that the suit is also collusive between him and his father Shri Ram Lal.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether Ram Lal, the father of the plaintiff and others, secured country liquor vends at Patiala Gate, Daladi Gate, Nabha and factory Area, Nabha for the year 1968-69, and they defaulted in the payment of license fee and the amount of Rs. 6,54,998/- is outstanding against them.

2. Whether Ram Lal, defaulter, transferred the house in the name of his son Tarlochan Lal vide gift deed dated 4.11.968, to avoid the payment of excise dues to the Government?

3. Whether this transfer was legally ignored keeping in view the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the gifted house was attached under Section 72 of the Punjab land Revenue Act, 1887 for the payment of Govt. dues? OPD

4. Whether the suit for permanent injunction is not maintain able against the State of Punjab and the defendants? OPD

5. Whether t