9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Is the suit maintainable as framed? 2. Are the deeds of settlement dated March 22, 1957, and registered on March 25, 1957, void and not binding upon the plaintiff? 3. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Is the suit maintainable as framed? The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable, contending that under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer must defraud the whole body of creditors, not just a single creditor like the plaintiff. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, but no advertisement was made, thus losing its representative character. The court, however, noted that the defendant did not provide specific reasons in the written statement for why the suit was not maintainable. Citing Dr. D. M. Lahiri v. Rajendra Nath, the court emphasized that issues should be framed to pinpoint the real and substantial points of difference between the parties, and a vague recital in the written statement is insufficient. Moreover, the court referred to Abdul Hakim v. Abdul Gani, which held that the failure to issue a notice under Order 1, Rule 8 is the court's duty and should not result in dismissing the suit. Kumaravelu Chettiar v. Ramaswami Ayyar further supported this by stating that it is the court's duty to direct notice once permission under Order 1, Rule 8 is granted. Issue 2: Are the deeds of settlement dated March 22, 1957, and registered on March 25, 1957, void and not binding upon the plaintiff? The plaintiff argued that the deeds of settlement were executed with the intent to defraud creditors, particularly the income-tax department, which had substantial claims against Ram Peary Debi Kanoria. The plaintiff provided evidence through various witnesses and documents, including the demand register, to substantiate the claim of outstanding taxes. The court examined Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that any transfer made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of any creditor. The court found that the transfers were made fraudulently with an intent to defraud the creditors, as no evidence was provided in rebuttal by the defendant. The court also referred to various case laws, including Tharu Cheru v. Mary and Bhaskara Chalamiah v. Body of Creditors of Piler Khasim Sahib, which held that even a single creditor could file a suit under Section 53 to set aside a fraudulent transfer. Issue 3: To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? The court noted that the defendant did not plead or provide evidence indicating that Ram Peary Debi had other creditors. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to claim relief under Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, which voids any transfer made during the pendency of tax proceedings unless it is for adequate consideration and without notice of the tax proceedings. Given the facts and circumstances, the court answered Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2 in the affirmative. For Issue No. 2, the court passed a decree in terms of prayers (b) and (f), thereby declaring the deeds of settlement void and not binding upon the plaintiff. Conclusion: The court concluded that the suit was maintainable as framed, the deeds of settlement were void and not binding upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.
|
