Skip to content


Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Srinivasa Sastrial - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1914)16BOMLR783
AppellantChidambaram Chettiar
RespondentSrinivasa Sastrial
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
deed of assignment-validity of-assignment for valuable consideration void, if made to defeat creditors-such assignment not valid even in part.;a deed of assignment by a debtor is void against his creditors when he is in state of insolvency or when the effect of the deed is to leave him without the means of paying the debts due by him at the time of the assignment. if such is the condition of the debtor or the consequence of his act, to render the deed valid it must be proved that the assignment made was on good consideration and bona fide. the deed, which though in part for good consideration, is, as regard the other party only any arrangement to defeat creditors, is wholly void against the creditors and cannot be upheld to the extent to which it is supported by consideration. - moulton, j.1. their lordships are of opinion that the two decisions appealed against are correct; that the high court acted rightly in setting aside the two assignment?, the one to annamalai and the other to chidambaram, and that no valid proceedings can therefore be based on either of those assignments. the question whether any of the parties can establish rights based, not on the assignments, but on other grounds, such as the actual payment of debts, is a point which was in their lordships' opinion, not before the courts below, and is not before their lordships, and on that point therefore they pronounce no opinion.2. their lordships will, therefore, humbly advise his majesty that these appeals should be dismissed.
Judgment:

Moulton, J.

1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the two decisions appealed against are correct; that the High Court acted rightly in setting aside the two assignment?, the one to Annamalai and the other to Chidambaram, and that no valid proceedings can therefore be based on either of those assignments. The question whether any of the parties can establish rights based, not on the assignments, but on other grounds, such as the actual payment of debts, is a point which was in their Lordships' opinion, not before the Courts below, and is not before their Lordships, and on that point therefore they pronounce no opinion.

2. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that these appeals should be dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //