9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of a conveyance deed executed in a fraudulent attempt to defeat a creditor's claim. 2. Application of the Indian Limitation Act to the right of action in the case. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a dispute concerning a conveyance deed executed in a fraudulent attempt to defeat a creditor's claim. The original action was brought by R. Muniandy Servai, claiming through his deceased brother Chellum Servai, against T. P Petherpermal Chetty and others to recover possession of a tract of paddy land. The deed in question, executed on June 11, 1895, purported to convey the land to Petherpermal Chetty for a consideration of Rs. 30,000. However, it was found that the deed was a benami conveyance made in collusion to defeat the claim of an equitable mortgagee on the lands. The District Judge determined that the conveyance was fraudulent and allowed the equitable mortgagee to hold priority over it. Despite the fraudulent nature of the conveyance, the creditor was eventually paid the debt and costs, rendering the fraudulent conveyance ineffective in defrauding the creditor. The Court held that the plaintiff, despite participating in the fraudulent attempt, was entitled to recover possession of the lands conveyed, as the fraudulent purpose had not been achieved. Regarding the application of the Indian Limitation Act, the Court found that the conveyance deed, being inoperative due to its fraudulent nature, did not bar the plaintiff's right to recover possession of the land. The Court determined that the suit was instituted within the applicable limitation period under the Act, and thus, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. The judgment affirmed the decision appealed from and dismissed the appeal, with the appellant being ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the principle that a fraudulent conveyance does not prevent the defrauded party from seeking to recover possession of the property involved. Additionally, it clarified the application of the Indian Limitation Act in cases involving fraudulent transactions, emphasizing that inoperative instruments do not bar the right to seek relief within the limitation period provided by the Act.
|
