9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lam, in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1977 arising out of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Original Suit No. 5-A/75. 2.. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the finding of the court below that the transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 was for valuable consideration without notice of the pendency of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his father Lalchand, had mortgaged the suit house in favour of the respondent No. 1, Abhayakumar. Kanhaiyalal sold his rights in the house thereafter to one Mishrilal and deposited Rs. 800 towards interest and Rs. 3,500 towards principal. Later on, for the balance amount of Rs. 6,500 Kanhaiyalal and his father conveyed the property by a registered sale deed to the respondent No. 1, Abhayakumar. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not sold to defraud the revenue. 6.. Shri S.D. Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contended that the lower courts have correctly interpreted section 33-A of the Act, which requires the proof of the fact that the property was transferred with the intention to defraud the revenue, before it could be declared that the transaction was void. According to him, in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. Moreover, it is amply proved from the evidence in the case that the transfer was for valuable consideration, which would as such fall within proviso to section 33-A of the Act also. In this appeal, the finding of facts arrived at by the lower courts cannot be allowed to be challenged as the circumstances in which such findings of fact can be challenged are not available in this case. 8.. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
