Skip to content


Pellur Mastenreddi and ors. Vs. Kunamreddi Malakonda Reddi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in33Ind.Cas.695
AppellantPellur Mastenreddi and ors.
RespondentKunamreddi Malakonda Reddi and anr.
Cases ReferredHakim Lal v. Mooshahar Sahu
Excerpt:
insolvency - fraudulent transfer--sale for consideration--preference of body of creditors to prejudice one single creditor, whether fraudulent. - .....the 1st defendant in favour of ramalakshmammal are genuine documents supported by proper consideration. the validity of the debts evidenced by exhibit e, j, k, and l is not seriously questioned by the appellants. the disputed sale-deed, exhibit a, is supported by the 1st respondent's promise to pay up the debts due under the valid documents b, d, e, j, k and l. there is no question in this case of vendee conspiring with the vendor to convert land into cash in order that the vendor's creditors might be put to delay and placed in difficulties in getting at the said cash for the satisfaction of their claims.3. the sale to the respondent is, therefore, not invalid against the appellants see hakim lal v. mooshahar sahu 34 c.s 9 99 though one of the motives operating in the mind of the 1st.....
Judgment:

1. The learned District Judge has carefully and fully considered the whole evidence.

2. The case has also been elaborately argued before us. We agree with the District Judge that the Exhibits B, M and D executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Ramalakshmammal are genuine documents supported by proper consideration. The validity of the debts evidenced by Exhibit E, J, K, and L is not seriously questioned by the appellants. The disputed sale-deed, Exhibit A, is supported by the 1st respondent's promise to pay up the debts due under the valid documents B, D, E, J, K and L. There is no question in this case of vendee conspiring with the vendor to convert land into cash in order that the vendor's creditors might be put to delay and placed in difficulties in getting at the said cash for the satisfaction of their claims.

3. The sale to the respondent is, therefore, not invalid against the appellants see Hakim Lal v. Mooshahar Sahu 34 C.S 9 99 though one of the motives operating in the mind of the 1st respondent (and it was a very bad motive) was to see that the other creditors than the appellants get preference over the appellants and that the appellants are prevented thereby from getting along with other creditors even a proportionate share of the sums due to them by the 1st defendant.

4. In the result we shall dismiss the appeal with costs.


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