Skip to content


Ramabrahmam Vs. Gudimalla Andalamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Mad597
AppellantRamabrahmam
RespondentGudimalla Andalamma
Cases ReferredIn Puran Nath v. Atwargir
Excerpt:
- - 217, a bench of the allahabad high court held that for debtor to put immovable property out of the reach of his creditors by bringing a collusive suit against a third party as if for recovery of possession and then to compromise it so as to leave that party in possession would be a transfer within section 4 (b) (now section 6 (b), provincial insolvency act, and if so, it would clearly be liable to attack under section 53. 2. nor has the learned district judge considered the applicability of section 4 of the act, under which also the official receiver's petition was preferred......a collusive suit against a third party as if for recovery of possession and then to compromise it so as to leave that party in possession would be a transfer within section 4 (b) (now section 6 (b), provincial insolvency act, and if so, it would clearly be liable to attack under section 53.2. nor has the learned district judge considered the applicability of section 4 of the act, under which also the official receiver's petition was preferred. this appeal is allowed, and the order of the district judge is set aside. the petition is remanded to him for fresh disposal after further inquiry. the costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. We do not agree with the learned District Judge that a transfer by a Court sale in execution is entirely outside the scope of Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act. It is possible that, as alleged in this case, such a sale may be collusive and in execution of a collusive decree. In Thiruvengada Mudaliar, In the matter of : AIR1928Mad889 , it was held that a charge made by a decree in pursuance of collusive arbitration proceeding's was within the section. In Puran Nath v. Atwargir [1915] 29 I.C. 217, a Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that for debtor to put immovable property out of the reach of his creditors by bringing a collusive suit against a third party as if for recovery of possession and then to compromise it so as to leave that party in possession would be a transfer within Section 4 (b) (now Section 6 (b), Provincial Insolvency Act, and if so, it would clearly be liable to attack under Section 53.

2. Nor has the learned District Judge considered the applicability of Section 4 of the Act, under which also the Official Receiver's petition was preferred. This appeal is allowed, and the order of the District Judge is set aside. The petition is remanded to him for fresh disposal after further inquiry. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.


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