1. Sale of partnership property following dissolution — Attachment by decree-holder — Suit to set aside attachment — Challenge under Section 53(1), Transfer of Property Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 364
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Subba Rao : N.Rajagopala Ayyangar : S.R.Dass
C.Abdul Shukoor Saheb
Versus
Arji Papa Rao
Case No. : 164 of 1962
Date of Decision : 11/14/62
Advocates Appeared: Bhimasankaran K. : Chetty A.Ranganadham : Rangam A.V. : Rao N.Rajeswara : Sarma J.V.Krishna : Satyanarayana T. : Valli A.Veda
Advocates:
A.RANGANADHAM CHETTY, A.V.RANGAM, A.VEDAVALLI, J.V.KRISHNA SHARMA, K.Bhimasankaran, N.RAJAGESWAR RAO, T.SATYANARAYANA
A.RANGANADHAM CHETTY, A.V.RANGAM, A.VEDAVALLI, J.V.KRISHNA SHARMA, K.Bhimasankaran, N.RAJAGESWAR RAO, T.SATYANARAYANA
A transfer voidable under Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act can be challenged as a defense in a suit to set aside a summary order under Order XXI, Rule 63 CPC, regardless of the requirement for representative suits when a creditor sues as a plaintiff.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53(1) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI, Rules 58 to 63 - Transfer of immovable property intended to defeat or delay creditors - A transfer made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed. (Para 16)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53(1) - Transferee in good faith and for consideration - To claim protection as a bona fide purchaser, the transferee must establish that they were not a party to the design of the transferor and did not share the intention to defraud creditors, taking the sale honestly believing it was in the ordinary course of business. (Para 17)
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI, Rule 63 - Defense of fraudulent transfer - A transfer voidable under Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act can be impugned by way of defense to a suit to set aside a summary order under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The statutory requirement that a suit to avoid such a transfer be instituted on behalf of all creditors applies to the framing of a suit by a plaintiff and does not preclude a defendant from challenging the validity of a voidable sale. (Paras 29, 31)
Facts of the case:
Following the dissolution of a partnership firm, a property was allotted to one partner, who subsequently sold it to a third party. A decree-holder of the dissolved firm attached the property in execution of a decree. The purchaser filed a claim to raise the attachment, which was dismissed in summary proceedings. The purchaser then filed a suit to set aside the summary order. The attaching creditor contended that the sale was either a sham transaction or a fraudulent transfer intended to defeat creditors.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the sale was real and supported by consideration, it was executed with the intent to defeat and delay creditors. The vendor was in financial distress and under pressure from creditors at the time of the sale. The registration of the deed in a distant city was viewed as a measure of secrecy. The purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser as he had notice of the vendor's debts through the deed of dissolution and shared the intent to keep the property beyond the reach of creditors.
Issues: Whether the sale was intended to defeat or delay creditors under Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act; whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value; and whether a plea of fraud under Section 53(1) can be raised as a defense in a suit to set aside a summary order under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cumulative effect of the vendor's financial embarrassment, the timing of the sale, and the secrecy of registration established an intent to defraud creditors. The purchaser's knowledge of the vendor's liabilities and their close community ties indicated a lack of good faith. Legally, the requirement for a representative suit under the amended Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act governs how a plaintiff must frame a suit and does not prevent a defendant from resisting a claim by impugning a voidable transfer.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the sale was sham or intended to defraud creditors — Whether the purchaser acted in good faith — Whether Section 53(1) requires a representative suit. (Para 6 )
3. Financial distress and secrecy in registration indicated intent to defeat creditors — Purchaser's knowledge of debts and lack of inquiry negated good faith. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. A creditor may raise a plea under Section 53(1), Transfer of Property Act, as a defense in a suit under Order XXI Rule 63, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 32 )
6. How is the intent to defeat or delay creditors determined under Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act?
The court considers the cumulative effect of circumstances, such as the transferor's financial embarrassment, pressure from creditors, and efforts to maintain secrecy regarding the transaction, to infer the object of putting property beyond creditors' reach. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 )
7. When is a transferee denied the protection of being a purchaser in good faith under Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act?
A transferee is not in good faith if they have notice of the transferor's design to defraud creditors, evidenced by knowledge of the transferor's debts or participation in secrecy. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. Does the requirement for a representative suit under Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act apply to a defendant in a suit under Order XXI Rule 63 CPC?
No. The requirement for a representative suit applies to a creditor filing a suit to avoid a transfer, not to a creditor raising the transfer's voidability as a defense to a suit to set aside a summary order. (Para 30 , 31 )
9. Can an attaching creditor resist a suit to set aside a summary order by pleading that the transfer was fraudulent?
Yes. A creditor can raise the plea that a transfer is voidable under Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act as a defense in a suit under Order XXI Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
N.R.AYYANGAR, J.
(1) THIS appeal comes before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the High court of Andhra Pradesh-under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.
(2) THE following facts are necessary to be stated to apperciate the contention-, urged before us. We consider it would be convenient to refer to the parties by their array in the trial court. The 2nd defendantfirm Hajee Abdul Kadir Sahib and Lala Batcha Sahib & Co., had been apparently carrying on business in several places including Vizianagaram, Bellary, Madras etc., in skins and hides since 1941 when the partnership was formed between the 3rd and the 4th defendants. It was common ground that from about 1947 or 1948 the firm had not been doing any businesss in Vizianagaram and by that time it had contracted quite a large volume of debts, the tannery business there proving a loss. The two partners accordingly entered into a deed of dissolution dated 31/03/1949, in which it is stated that the book-debts, stock in trade, immovable properties and other assets including the goodwill of the firm were of the value of Rs. 2,90,000.00 , and at the same time that the partnership which was admitted to be suffering losses owed debts to the extent. of Rs. 2-1/2 lakhs. It was agreed between the partners that the 3rd defendant Abdul Shukoor Saheb should go out of the partnership taking with him one item of property in Vaniyambadi valued at Rs. 20,000.00 while- the suit tannery which was estimated as of the same value was to become the sole property of the 4th defendant who was described in the deed as `the continuing partner`. Soon after this deed of dissolution the 4th defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale to him of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 19,000.00 , and later executed the deed of sale on 20/05/1949. The plaintiff was, however, advised that it would be safer to have the conveyance in his favour executed by the other partner also and accordingly the 3rd defendant was also an executant of the sale deed. On the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff entered into possession and he claimed to have thereafter effected improvements to the property.
(3) WHILE so, the 1st defendant-Arji Papa Rao-filed suit O. S. 46 of 1950 in the court of subordinate judge at Visakhapatnam for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,95.00 5/8 against the 2nd defendant firm and its partners defendants 3 & 4 and obtained a decree for the sum claimed with interest and costs on 19/06/1951. Soon after filing the plaint he obtained an order for attachment before judgment of the suit property and that order was on the passing of the decree made absolute, subject however, to the result of a claim petition which had been filed by the plaintiff for raising the attachment. The Subordinate judge of Visakhapatnam dismissed the plaintiffs claim and this has led to the suit O. S. 145 of 1951 out of which this appeal arises to set aside that summary order under O. XXI, r. 63, Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff impleaded as parties to the suit besides the attaching decree-holder who was made the 1st defendant, the debtor-firm and the two partners as defendants 2 to 4 respectively and the son of the 4th defendant who executed the sale deed as his agent under a power of attorney as the 5th defendant.
(4) THE plaintiff claimed that he purchased the property bonafide and for its full value, that since its purchase he having entered into possession, was in enjoyment thereof in his own right, paying the rates and taxes due thereon and had effected valuable improvements thereto, and that consequently the property was not liable to be attached as belonging to the partnership or any of its partners.
(5) BROADLY stated, the defence of the 1st defendant the only contesting defendant, the others either remaining ex parte or supporting the plaintiff, was that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was either a sham and nominal transaction or in fraud of creditors of who
