A grantor alleging a registered conveyance was a fictitious transaction to defraud creditors bears a heavy burden of proof. Possession by a father of a minor daughter's property is not adverse if consistent with the legal title, preventing the acquisition of title by limitation.

Lord Atkin. -

This is an appeal from the High Court at Rangoon allowing an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Tharrawaddy, made in favour of the plaintiff, the present appellant. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, Ma Ngwe Naing, against her father, the defendant, Maung Tha Maung, claiming possession of certain lands, of which she was the registered owner. It is not disputed that the father, by deed dated 15th January 1904, purported to have made a partition of property and to have conveyed the property in question to his daughter. He alleges, however, that the transaction was a fictitious transaction intended merely to defeat his creditors. The High Court reversing the District Judge have so held ; the daughter has appealed.

Maung Tha Maung married as his first wife Ma Pu ; the plaintiff is the only issue of the marriage. In February 1903, Ma Pu died ; the plaintiff was then 8 or 9 years old. Later, in 1903, the defendant married Ngwe Hlaing. On the remarriage the plaintiff-undoubtedly became entitled to a share of the joint marital property of her father and deceased mother. Three or four months after the marriage the father took all the steps necessary to carry out a legal partition and to vest the appropriate share in the daughter. The family were consulted. Lugyis were summoned to authenticate the partition, and a formal document was executed by the father on 15th January 1904, which is Ex. 1. It recites that the father divides and gives outright possession by way of inheritance of one-fourth of the whole estate to his daughter for the mother s share, and that Ma Shwe Hnit, the grandmother of the daughter, undertook to take charge of the daughter's share until the daughter's majority. It then defines the share, which consisted of 78 acres of paddy land, estimated in the deed as worth Rs. 3,500, and a house and compound worth Rs. 500, and concludes with formal words of conveyance. The document was duly registered. In due course the grandmother petitioned the Court of the District Judge for a grant of letters of administration to the deceased Ma Pu, alleging that the father had made over the guardianship and one-fourth share due to deceased wife in his trust for the daughter. On 20th February letters of administration of the estate of Ma Pu in general form were granted to Ma Shwe Hnit. In 1908-the father's creditors who had obtained decrees against him by way of execution attached the property in question. The grandmother, acting on behalf of the daughter, with approval and assistance of the father took proceedings to have the attachment set aside and succeeded. The father subsequently made a composition with his creditors. About the time of the deed of partition the plaintiff went to live with her maternal grandmother Shwe Pai, with whom apparently, she continued to live until her marriage in 1924. She attained her majority in 1911. During the whole of this period the father, as found by the trial Judge continued in possession of the property, receiving the rents and produce. He, however, contributed to the daughter's support.

The trial Judge finds that about 1915 the daughter went with her maternal uncle and another witness to her father to demand possession of the lands, and received an assurance from the father that the property was safe and would be restored to her. Representations had been made in 1924 and preceding years by the father to various revenue officers that the lands in question were the daughter's and that he was leasing them on her behalf. The father gave evidence to the effect that at the time of the alleged partition he owned Rs. 30,000, that he executed the document to save the property from his creditors, and that under it he transferred all his property to his daughter's name. He says that after the partition he absconded for a time to avoid his creditors. On return he was sued and was imprisoned for debt. He made an unsuccessful application to be declared an insolvent. After the creditor