9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of whether a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act for a declaration that an alienation by the debtor is void against the creditors falls under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act or under Article 17-A of Schedule II of the same Act. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this appeal is the categorization of a suit brought by a creditor under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act for a declaration that an alienation by the debtor is void against the creditors. The plaintiff sought a declaration that properties conveyed to the first defendant are liable to be attached to realize a decree debt obtained against the second defendant. The Courts below categorized the suit under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act. The judgment clarifies the distinction between a suit for cancellation of an instrument and a suit for a declaration that the instrument is not binding. The plaintiff, in this case, sues in a representative capacity, which further complicates the issue. The judgment emphasizes that when seeking to establish a title impeded by a transaction between third parties, the appropriate remedy is to seek a declaration that the transaction is invalid, not its cancellation. 2. The judgment discusses a previous decision where a minor sought to get rid of an alienation made by his guardian, which had to be canceled before recovering possession of the properties. The judgment highlights that the relief sought in such cases falls under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act. Applying the same principle to suits under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the judgment argues that creditors seeking a declaration that an alienation is void are not entitled to pray for its complete cancellation. The proper prayer in such suits is for a declaration that the alienation is not binding on the creditors to the extent of their debts, not for its cancellation. 3. The judgment concludes that the suit falls under Article 17-A(1) of the Second Schedule of the Court-Fees Act, contrary to the lower courts' decisions. It holds that the plaint was wrongfully rejected and remands the suit to the trial court. The costs are to abide by the result of the suit, and court fees paid are to be refunded. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing suits for declarations and cancellations in cases involving alienations by debtors against creditors.
|
