Govinda Menon, J.- This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 53 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore against the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have no right to institute the suit. Though as many as 12 issues were framed by the learned Subordinate Judge the decision depended on the preliminary question regarding the right of the plaintiffs to institute the suit on the ground that they had a cause of action. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaint did not show that the plaintiffs had an existing cause of action and therefore dismissed the suit.

The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of one Muhammad Ismail Sahib who died on 25th February, 1943, and the present suit is brought for the recovery of possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint from the 1st defendant who was an alienee of those properties as well as from other defendants who claimed to be the subsequent transferees for consideration from the 1st defendant. There are no less than 30 defendants to the suit and most of them contest the plaintiffs claim to any relief. This Muhammad Ismail Sahib was at one time a man of means. On 17th July, 1926, a sale deed was executed by him in favour of the 1st defendant of some properties belonging to him for a sum of Rs. 22,000. On the very same day, he executed a usufructuary mortgage deed, with regard to the rest of his properties in favour of the same 1st defendant for a sum of Rs, 4,000. Though the properties were situated within the registration sub-district of Erode, it so happened that those two documents were registered by the Sub-Registrar of Aravakurichi in Trichinopoly district. How the documents got registered in that district was that an item of property, over which Muhammad Ismail had no title but admittedly situated within the jurisdiction of Aravakurichi Sub-Registrar’s Office, was added to the schedule of each of the documents and therefore that Sub-Registrar was clothed with jurisdiction to register those documents. It is common ground that the vendor or the mortgagor in the case had no title to those properties.

While matters were in that stage, nearly a year later on 24th August, 1927, a creditor of Muhammad Ismail Sahib filed I.P. No. 215 of 1927 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, to adjudicate Muhammad Ismail Sahib an insolvent. This petition was enquired into by the insolvency court and on 8th December, 1927, Muhammad Ismail Sahib was adjudged an insolvent and whatever properties that he possessed at that time vested in the Official Receiver who took charge of the estate. Whether the properties covered by the sale deed and the mortgage deed vested in the Official Receiver or not we cannot say because there is no definite evidence as to what exactly vested in him. After this, the Official Receiver filed I.A. No. 440 of 1930 before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, under sections 4 and 53 of the Insolvency Act to annul the sale deed executed by the insolvent in favour of the 1st defendant as well as to declare that the usufructuary mortgage executed by the insolvent in favour of the 1st defendant was not valid and binding on him. The vendee and the mortgagee contested this application and the matter was enquired into at some length by the learned Subordinate Judge. The first point which came up before him for consideration was whether the sale and the mortgage deeds executed by the insolvent without receiving consideration and the second point that was considered was whether the said deeds were void under the registration Jaw; the third point was whether the said deeds were liable to be annulled for the reason alleged by the petitioning creditor. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that the two documents were supported by consideration and were real and genuine documents not intended to defeat or delay the creditors. His finding is contained at the end of paragraph 13 of his judgment marked in this case as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document