Koolayappa Rowther Vs. Balusami and anr.

Koolayappa Rowther vs Balusami and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 19, 1909

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/796115

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/796115
Court: Chennai
Judge: Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 19, 1909
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 53 - Transfer in part for valuable consideration and in part for defeating creditors, effect of. - - ORDER 1. The District Judge clearly seems to have held that the sale to the plaintiff' was not intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, not voidable, under Section...

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Koolayappa Rowther

Respondent

Balusami and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Chidambaram Chettiar v. Sami Aiyar
Reported In: 4Ind.Cas.1140

Excerpt

transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 53 - transfer in part for valuable consideration and in part for defeating creditors, effect of. - - order 1. the district judge clearly seems to have held that the sale to the plaintiff' was not intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, not voidable, under section 53 of the transfer of property act merely because there was some consideration for the sale, and that there was an intention to really transfer the property.order1. the district judge clearly seems to have held that the sale to the plaintiff' was not intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, not voidable, under section 53 of the transfer of property act merely because there was some consideration for the sale, and that there was an intention to really transfer the property. these circumstances are sufficient to warrant the finding of the district judge. as was pointed out in chidambaram chettiar v. sami aiyar 6 m.l.j. 427. where a transfer, though, in part for valuable consideration, is, as regards the other part only an arrangement to defeat the creditors, it is wholly void against the creditors both under section 53 of the transfer of property act and under 13 elizabeth chap. 5 and cannot be upheld to the extent to which it. is supported by consideration. if, therefore, the district judge should find that the object of the sale to the plaintiff was to defeat creditors and that the plaintiff was aware of that object then the facts that there was consideration and there was an intention to transfer will not affect the question. we must, therefore, ask the district judge to find, on the evidence on record with reference to these observations, whether the sale to the plaintiff was intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, voidable under section 53 of the transfer of property act.2. the findings should be submitted in six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.judgment3. we accept the finding the decree of the district judge is reversed and the decree of the district munsif restored with costs in this and in the lower appellate court.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The District Judge clearly seems to have held that the sale to the plaintiff' was not intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, not voidable, under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act merely because there was some consideration for the sale, and that there was an intention to really transfer the property. These circumstances are sufficient to warrant the finding of the District Judge. As was pointed out in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Sami Aiyar 6 M.L.J. 427. where a transfer, though, in part for valuable consideration, is, as regards the other part only an arrangement to defeat the creditors, it is wholly void against the creditors both under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and under 13 Elizabeth Chap. 5 and cannot be upheld to the extent to which it. is supported by consideration. If, therefore, the District Judge should find that the object of the sale to the plaintiff was to defeat creditors and that the plaintiff was aware of that object then the facts that there was consideration and there was an intention to transfer will not affect the question. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find, on the evidence on record with reference to these observations, whether the sale to the plaintiff was intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. The findings should be submitted in six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

JUDGMENT

3. We accept the finding The decree of the District Judge is reversed and the decree of the District Munsif restored with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.

Same Parties Koolayappa Rowther vs Balusami and anr. Same Subject Property Same Judge Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.

Property