The burden of proving good faith purchase and sufficient consideration shifts to the transferee when the transferor acts with intent to defeat or defraud creditors.

K. Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.

1. The appellant is the decree holder in Summary Suit No. 845 of 1974 on the file of the Bombay High Court. The decree in the said was sent to the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta for execution. The execution proceedings are stated to be pending before that Court. It would appear that there was an attachment before judgment of the stock in trade, items of furniture, fixtures, fittings and other movables which belonged to the defendants together with the goodwill of the defendants' business carried on by them in the name of M/s. Geetha Textiles. The attachment order was sent to the Quilon District Court for execution. The attachment was effected. However, on 7-9-1974 the appellant and the judgment debtor entered into a compromise whereby the judgment debtors agreed to pay the amount due from them in instalments; and also under-took that they would not dispose of the properties mentioned in the scheduled annexed to the order of attachment before judgment dated 23rd August, 1974 (except stock in trade). On the basis of this compromise a consent decree was passed on 3-2-1975. The judgment debtors having failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, the appellant herein moved the Court in Bombay for transferring the decree to the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta for execution. Thereafter, the appellant herein filed E. P. No. 61 of 1975 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. On 14-8-1975 the appellant filed an application for appointment of Receiver in respect of the immovable properties belonging to the judgment debtors. The judgment debtors entered appearance and undertook before the Court that they would not transfer the building or the immovable property which belonged to them. They also further represented that they had no intention to defeat the claims of the appellant. A settlement was arrived at and consent terms were accordingly filed in Court. The judgment debtors nevertheless, as before, failed to comply with the terms of the settlement dated 28-1-1976 filed in Court and the appellant herein filed E.P. No. 18 of 1976 before the same Court. A warrant of arrest was issued against respondent No. 5 herein and he was arrested and brought before Court. The 5th respondent herein was then released after furnishing security and he immediately filed Insolvency Petition numbered as I. P. No. 2 of 1977 and obtained an ex parte interim stay of further execution proceedings. The appellant herein entered appearance and got the interim stay granted in favour of the 4th respondent vacated. Thereafter the appellant herein filed an application for attachment of ten cents of land and the building thereon in Sy. No. 547/73 in Adoor village belonging to the judgment debtors. Attachment was effected, pursuant to the order of the Court on 6-7-1977.

2. It was in the above background that respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Claim Petition No. 217 of 1977 in E. P. No. 18 of 1976 under O.21 R.58 of the C.P.C. claiming ten cents of property and the buildings thereon in Sy. No. 547/3 of Adoor village attached in execution. It might be noted that it was this property that was attached in execution at the instance of the appellant herein pursuant to the order of the Court dated 8-7-1977. The attachment was actually effected on 21-7-1977.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 contended inter alia that one half of the attached property and the buildings was purchased by the first respondent herein on 15-4-1977 as per document No. 1169, and the remaining half of the property and the building thereon was purchased by the 2nd claimant herein on the same day as per document No. 1170 for a total consideration of Rs. 76,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 further contended that ever since the date of purchase, they were in possession and enjoyment of the land and the buildings thereon. It was contended by them that when the order of attachment was made, the judgment debtors (Respondents 4 to 6) had no subsisting title over the property. They also stated that they were not