Vallipuram V. Manikam Et Al.,

1931 Present : Akbar J.

VALLIPURAM v. MANIKAM et al.

97-C. R. Point Pedro, 24,792.

Execution-Conveyance of property subject to right of repurchase-Grantors right under conveyance-Liability to seizure-Civil Procedure Code, s.218 (k).

Where a conveyance of property was subject to the condition that the vendor was entitled to repurchase the property upon payment of a certain sum within a specified time,-

Held, the vendor's right was liable to seizure in execution and that it did not fall within the exception created by section 218 (k) of the Civil Procedure Code.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Point Pedro.

Tisseveresinghe, for plaintiff, appellant. Navaratnam, for second defendant, respondent.

November 20, 1931. AKBAR J.-

This is an action under section 247 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff-appellant as judgment-creditor of the first defendant-respondent obtained a decree against him in Court of Requests, Point Pedro, No. 24,215, on March 27, 1930. In this action the plaintiff seeks to set aside deed No. 21,554 dated June 5, 1930, whereby the first respondent renounced in favour of his sister, the second defendant-respondent, in consideration of a sum of Rs. 250 (which consideration was not paid in the presence of the notary) his right to obtain in terms of deed No. 1,937 dated April 10, 1929, a reconveyance of the land which the first defendant sold on that deed to the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 250 which was paid in the presence of the notary. Four issues were framed in this case, namely: - (1) Is the accrual of first defendant's right to get a retransfer contingent on payment of money? (2) Is the said right personal? (3) Was consideration paid? and (4) Was the deed of renunciation (No. 21,554 of June 5, 1930) obtained in fraud of creditors or to consolidate second defendant's property?

No evidence was led and the learned Commissioner decided the case on the first issue, namely, that the right created by deed-No. 1,937 of April 10, 1929 (marked 2 Dl and hereinafter referred to as such) was a contingent right and therefore was not liable to seizure under section 218 (?c) of the Civil Procedure Code. A very long argument was raised by counsel on both sides in this appeal but it is not, however, necessary for me to refer to all the points of law urged by counsel, because in my opinion the interest created by 2 Dl in favour of the first defendant did not fall under paragraph (k) of section 218 of the Civil Procedure Code. The deed 2 Dl is signed by the first defendant as well as the second defendant. It purports to be a conveyance in consideration of Rs. 250 by the first defendant in favour of his sister, the second defendant, of a certain property, subject to a certain condition. The condition is thus stated: "I do hereby declare that this property belongs to me by virtue of deed of transfer in my favour No. 6,155 dated July 3, 1924, and attested by Kana Supramaniam Notary and by possession, that when I ever within the term of three years from the date hereof pay the said consideration of rupees two hundred and fifty with interest thereon at the rate of sixteen per cent, per annum, then she shall have to execute a legal transfer deed in my -favour and if I fail to pay the said principal and interest within the said three years and get a deed executed in my favour, then this deed should, from the day after the expiration of the said three years, be considered as a deed without any bindings that I will deliver this day the possession of the said land unto her and, that the said deed has been delivered herewith.

" I, the said Rasammah, do hereby declare that I have purchased the said land subject to the said bindings, with consent of my husband the said Kanapathipillai Vallipuram ".

It is clear that the parties valued this option to purchase at Rs. 250 as evidenced by the later deed 21,554 of Jun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document