Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Karamdeep Kaur - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Limited and another - Respondents - Respondent
EFA-8 of 2023(O&M)
Decided On : 20-10-2023
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Fraudulent Transfer - Divorced Wife - Summary: The court dismissed the appeal of a divorced wife claiming a property transferred to her by her husband in lieu of maintenance, as the transfer was found to be fraudulent to defraud the creditor. The court relied on Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that any transfer made with intent to defeat or delay the creditor is voidable at the option of the creditor.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a divorced wife, claimed that her husband transferred land to her in lieu of maintenance. An arbitration award against her husband for recovery of more than Rs.3 crore was dismissed by the Executing Court, which found the transfer to be fraudulent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer of the property by the judgment debtor to his wife was in order to defraud the rights of recovery of the creditor, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the transfer of property by the judgment debtor to his divorced wife and the applicability of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that every transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditor is voidable at the option of the creditor.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
CM-4914-CI-2023
1. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.
2. The delay of 121 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. CM stands disposed of.
Main case
4. The appellant herein claims to be divorced wife of the judgment debtor. She claims that her husband in lieu of maintenance, transferred land measuring 4 kanal in her favour on 21.08.2013. There is an arbitration award against her husband for recovery of more than Rs.3 crore. The Executing Court while dismissing the objection has formed an opinion that the transfer of the property by the judgment debtor is a fraudulent transfer in order to defraud his creditor.
5. The correctness of the aforesaid order has been challenged in this execution first appeal. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the appellant is entitled to retain the property as it was transferred in her favour in lieu of right of maintenance. He further contends that the appellant is a divorced wife and therefore, the Court was required to frame issues and allow the appellant to lead evidence.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the appellant.
7. Admittedly, when the property was transferred by the judgment debtor in favour of the petitioner, the proceedings for passing the award were pending before the arbitrator. Moreover, the petition for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent was also filed during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Thus, it is evident that the transfer of the property by the judgment debtor in favour of his wife was in order to defraud the rights of recovery of the creditor. Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provide that every transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditor is voidable at the option of the creditor.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact, no ground to interfere is made out.
9. Dismissed accordingly.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Appeal dismissed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a transfer of property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditor is voidable at the option of the creditor, as per Section 53 of the....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that transfers of immovable property made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors are voidable under Section 53 (1) of the Transfer of Prop....
Civil courts are enjoined to consider disputes between parties and when substantive rights are created and such rights are being flouted, it is for civil court to consider respective contentions and ....
Transfers made during an injunction are void; claimants must prove bona fides as transferees to assert rights over attached property.
Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act protects maintenance rights against gratuitous transfers, applicable to all, irrespective of religion.
Fraudulent transactions under the Transfer of Property Act necessitate proof of good faith and consideration; lack thereof creates an inference of fraud against the debtor's intent to evade creditors....
The court determined that a pre-attachment transfer of property is valid if no evidence demonstrates fraud under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Cancellation of a sale deed is invalid if done unilaterally and without notice after a significant period, affirming binding ownership established by the original deed.
Fraudulent transfer of property to defeat the rights of a creditor can be voidable, justifying attachment under the Civil Procedure Code.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
