JUDGMENT :- The plaintiffs who failed in the courts below are the appellants in the second appeal. One Thangavelu, maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs executed a settlement deed Ex. A-1 dated 27-10-1944 under which he gave a life estate in the suit property to his daughter. Kanchana mala and the vested remainder to his grandsons. The mother executed a surrender deed Ex. A-2. dated 1-8-1956 in favour of her children, with the result that the remaindermen became entitled to the present possession of the property from the date of Ex. A-2. They have become the absolute owners of the property. The defendant obtained a decree against Kanchanamala in O. S. 1701 of 1956 for a sum of Rs. 1300 and he sought to attach the property in the hands of the minors on the ground that the surrender made by the mother judgment-debtor, was not a bona fide transaction and that it was a fraudulent transfer intended to defeat and delay the claim of the creditor. The courts below upheld the claim of the decree holder in the view that it was brought about with a view to defeat and delay the claim of the creditors. It is impossible to sustain the view taken by the courts below.

2. The matter has got to be decided under the provisions of Section 53. Transfer of Property Act, read with Section 5 of the same Act. Section 5 defines 'transfer of property' in these terms:-

"In the following sections 'transfer of property' means an act by which a living person conveys property in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself or to him self and one or more other living persons; and 'to transfer property' is to perform such act. In this section, 'living person' includes a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, but nothing con tained herein shall affect any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by compa nies, association or bodies of individuals."

In order to attack a transaction under Section 53, there must first be a transfer and that transfer must suffer under the infirmities mentioned in the said section. The question is: If a person who is a life-tenant under a settlement deed walks out of the picture and accelerates the rights of the remaindermen, whether that would amount to a 'transfer' within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. Sections 5 and 53?"

3. Cases have uniformly taken the view that a document of release, a document of relinquishment and document of surrender would not amount to a 'transfer' within the meaning of Section 5. The important idea involved in a transfer is that under the transfer a person who got title or right conveys that right or title to the transferee, which right the transferee acquires only in pursuance of the transfer. In the case of a surrender by life tenant in favour of the remaindermen, there is no transfer of property from the life tenant and there is merely an effacement or extinguishment of the rights of the life-tenant, with the re sult the rights of the remaindermen get accelerated. The rights of the re maindermen are derived only under the document executed by the full owner and when a surrender deed is executed, the full rights accrue to the remainder men only in pursuance of the title derived under the settlement and the remaindermen do not derive any title from or through the life-tenant who makes the

surrender. In other words there is merely a self-effacement on the part of the surrenderer life-tenant, who goes out of the picture.

4. Reference may be made to the Bench decision in Makhanlal Laha v. Nagendranath Adhikari ILR 60 Cal 379 : (AIR 1933 Cal 467) in which the Bench has pointed out that the word 'transfer' has been used in a technical sense and under the Transfer of Property Act, transfers are sale, mortgage, lease, exchange and gift, and that there is nothing in the Act to indicate that 'surrender' is a mode of transfer. It is observed-

"The term 'surrender' distinguished from transfer is very well known in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document