SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Mad) 483

Madras High Court
PALANISWAMY
Official Assignee, Madras - Appellant
Versus
Tehmina Dinshaw Tehrani - Respondent
Decided On : 07/26/1971

A release deed executed with the intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the transferor is voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:

PRESIDENCY TOWNS INSOLVENCY ACT, 1909 - SECTION 53 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 5 - RELEASE DEED - WHETHER A TRANSFER - INTENT TO DEFEAT CREDITORS - VOIDABLE TRANSACTION.

Fact of the Case:

The Official Assignee filed an application under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act to declare that a site and building were the sole property of the insolvent and that a release deed executed by the insolvent in favor of his wife was sham and nominal. The insolvent claimed that the property was purchased in joint names with his wife, that he had no beneficial interest, and that his name was included nominally. The Official Assignee alleged that the insolvent had trouble with income-tax authorities, that he included his wife's name to put off scrutiny, and that he executed the release deed to screen the property from creditors.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the release deed was executed with the intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the insolvent and that it was, therefore, voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court held that the transaction amounted to a "transfer" within the meaning of the Act and that the Official Assignee was entitled to impugn the transaction.

Issues: 1. Whether the release deed was a "transfer" within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. Whether the release deed was executed with the intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the insolvent.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the word "transfer" in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in a wide sense to include any form of an assurance inter vivos. The court relied on the definition of "conveyance" in Section 205(1)(ii) of the English Law of Property Act, 1925, which includes a release. The court also relied on the decision in Lakshmiammal v. Srinivasa Iyengar, AIR 1916 Mad 481, which held that the gratuitous remission of debt due to the debtor is a "transfer" within the meaning of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. The court found that the insolvent was heavily involved in debts at the time of the release and that the release was executed to screen his half share in the property from being proceeded against by his creditors. The court held that the attendant circumstances clearly showed that the device of release was adopted to defeat and delay the creditors of the insolvent.

Final Decision: The court set aside the release deed and declared that the Official Assignee was entitled to take action to work out his rights as regards the half share of the insolvent in the property.

Judgement

JUDGMENT:- The Official Assignee, Madras, has taken out this application by Judge's summons under S.7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to declare that the site at No.3/2-A College Road, Nungambakkam, Madras and the building put up thereon are the sole and exclusive property of Dinshaw K. Tebrani, the second respondent insolvent, that the deed of release dated 27-8-1955 executed by the insolvent in favour of his wife, the first respondent, is sham and nominal and was not intended to confer any title upon the first respondent and that the entire property vests in the Official Assignee and is available for the benefit of the creditors. In the alternative, the Official Assignee has prayed that if it is considered necessary the deed of release may be set aside as fraudulent as against the creditors made with the intention of defeating and delaying the creditors. The Official Assignee has also prayed for delivery of possession of the property. The second respondent, who was engaged in the business of producing cinema films, was adjudged insolvent on his own application on 2-12-1964. He admitted debts to the tune of Rs.3.20,343-58. In the petition to adjudge him insolvent he stated that the property in question was purchased in the joint names of himself and his wife, that he had no beneficial interest therein, the same having been exclusively acquired out of his wife's own funds and that his name was included only nominally. The site originally belonged to one Md. Shansuiddin Sahib. He conveyed it under the sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 5-7-1948 for Rs.21955-11-8 in favour of both the respondents. The endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar upon that registered sale deed says that on behalf of the two respondents one Purushotham handed over a crossed cheque drawn on the Chartered Bank of India in favour of the vendor for Rs.21,595-11-8. That cheque had been issued by late Advocate Rangachari. After purchasing the site, a superstructure was put upon it. The two respondents jointly executed a simple mortgage deed on 12-7-1952 in favour of the Midland Insurance Co., for a sum of Rupees 25,000, for the purpose of the construction. On 27-8-1955, the second respondent insolvent executed the release deed Ex.P-3 in favour of his wife, the first respondent, reciting inter alia that the beneficial interest in the property exclusively belonged to the first respondent, that it was her money that was used for the purchase of the land, that the name of the husband insolvent was included in the sale deed for the purpose of convenience merely with a view to obviate the necessity of the personal attendance of the wife in interviewing the public authorities for mutation of names in the revenue registers, securing actual possession of the plot, effectuating sub-division etc., that it was not intended that the the insolvent should have any manner of right, title or interest in the site, that the first respondent who had applied and received the necessary quota for purchase of steel requirements for the construction, that the first respondent was dealing with the property as her own that in view of the inconvenience which the wife was experiencing she pressed her husband to execute a proper deed of release and relinquishment and that in order to dispel the cloud of doubt upon the exclusive title of the wife, the husband executed the deed of release. After this release, the property came to stand solely in the name of the wife, the first respondent.

2. The case of the Official Assignee is that the insolvent bad trouble with the income-tax authorities for his unaccounted wealth, that the entire consideration for the purchase of the plot was found only by the insolvent, that the insolvent's wife had no wherewithal to purchase the property, that with a view to put off the scrutiny by the income-tax authorities, the insolvent included his wife's name in the purchase of the property, that the insolvent himself put up














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top