Discussion on legal implications:
Obvisouly, when the cheques drawn by the Drawer are returned by the Banker due to insufficient fund, the drawer is bound to face the criminal prosecution as provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ultimate result of the trial depends upon the "proof of evidence" and the "interpretative process by the trial Court". If it is proved to the satisfaction of the trial court that offence is committed by the accused, the Court has no option, but to "convict the accused". The Court may also consider to compensate the complainant. This is one thing.
The Creditor has a remedy to file a Civil Suit for recovery of amount simultaneouslu. The Creditor is justified in doing so. The main originator is absconding, and therefore, it is likely that the process may be delayed for sometime. However, if you have accepted the "summons and notices" on his behalf, the process is deemed to have been served. It is necessary that the Plaintiff (main originator) should contest the suit without being fled away, or else the court may pass an exparte decree fixing the debt, which will be executable on the strength of the decree. If, there are properties left by the main originator, it is likely that the properties may be attached and auctioned so that the decree can be fulfilled.
It has been mentioned in your thread that your father has gifted the immovable property to you. Meaning thereby that you know that your father has had incurred debt. The fact mentioned in your thread that you are innocent and do not know anything is unbeliveable. What was the reason with your father to trasnfer the property by way of git during his life time. The obvious presumption is to "avoid the debt incurred" so that the property may not be affected. these are all old practices and course, or routes to defeat the recovery. But clearly note that if the immovable property was transferred by way of gift prior to or within a period of three years from the date of litigation, the "course that your father adopted" may not work that effectively.
However, you may contact a seasoned or well experienced lawyer doing on such subject to get tested and proved before the justice delivery system. If you have any query,or confusion, please feel free to ask.
Moral is that you have admitted in so many words in your thread that your father incurred debt while doing free lance business. If that was really so and when it was acknowledged, it is better to compromise. Make honest affort to build the confidence in the creditor and whenever you repay the debt, obtain the receipt, or else pay it by bankers cheque or draft so that it may serve as a proof.
Contradictory statement that I found in thread:
On one hand you say that you are unable to pay the debt as you have no money and on the other hand you say that you are serving in Multi National Company. Which one of the statement should be belived?