9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the kobala (deed of sale) executed by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in favor of Defendant No. 1. 2. Determination of whether Defendant No. 1 is a benamdar (nominee) of Defendant No. 3. 3. Allegations of fraud and collusion to delay or defraud creditors. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Kobala: The case revolves around the sale of Mahal No. 429, part of the Sukhsena Group of properties. The decree-holder, a creditor of Chhatrapat Singh, sought to execute a decree against these properties. Chhatrapat's wife, Jamaher Kumari, claimed ownership, but her claim was disallowed for six properties as being benami (held in name of another). The seventh property, Mahal No. 429, was outside the local court's jurisdiction. The decree-holder then faced a claim from the purchaser, who asserted he bought the property for one lakh and ten thousand rupees. The decree-holder alleged the transaction was a sham, with the purchaser acting as a benamdar for Chhatrapat. The Subordinate Judge framed the issue of whether the kobala was "collusive, fraudulent and without consideration" and whether Defendant No. 1 was a benamdar. The Subordinate Judge found in favor of the purchaser, dismissing the suit with costs. However, the High Court reversed this decision, siding with the decree-holder, leading to the present appeal. 2. Determination of Benami: The core question was whether the purchaser genuinely bought the property or merely took a conveyance as a benamdar for Chhatrapat. The High Court acknowledged that "the appearances are all in favour of the transaction being genuine," but questioned whether the balance of inferences favored the decree-holder. The High Court noted Chhatrapat's desperate financial state and his wife's role as a benamdar for other properties. They also considered the purchaser's motivations, given his wealth and religious connection to Chhatrapat. However, the High Court found no substantial evidence to prove the purchaser was a benamdar, as there was no tracing of money back to the purchaser or his agents. 3. Allegations of Fraud and Collusion: The decree-holder alleged that the sale was fraudulent, created to defraud creditors. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, finding no evidence of fraud or collusion. The High Court, however, questioned the lack of thorough enquiry into the title and value of the property, the missing documents, and the purchaser's connection to Chhatrapat. They also noted that the purchaser's agents were somewhat remiss in their enquiries. Despite these suspicions, the High Court's judgment was based on the balance of probabilities rather than concrete evidence. The Privy Council emphasized that "the decision of the Court rests not upon suspicion, but upon legal grounds, established by legal testimony." They found that the decree-holder did not discharge the burden of proof, and the suit was rightly dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. Conclusion: The Privy Council concluded that the High Court's judgment could not stand. They advised that the appeal be allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the suit dismissed with costs to be paid by the first Respondent. The judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence over suspicion in legal proceedings.
|
