Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. In the Jight of the above finding that the liability arising out of Ext. Bl Kurichoondi Panchayadharam cannot be treated as a 'debt', it has to be further held that at the time of execution of Ext. AI, there was no debt due from the second respondent. As a necessary legal consequence, it has also to be held that appellant, while challenging Ext. Al transaction on the basis of Section 53 of the Act, cannot rely upon any legal presumption that it is a transfer effected with intent to defeat or delay the creditors and has to prove as a matter of fact that the transfer was one entered into fraudulently with the intention of delaying ordefeating the creditors. In other words, the Court is bound to proceed on the basis that Ext. A1 is a valid assignment and that the burden of proving that it is a transaction hit by the provisions in Section 53 is on the appellant. Taking note of the above legal position, the learned counsel has alternatively contended that the appellant has satisfactorily established that it is an assignment entered into fraudulently and as such as he is entitled to get it avoided under Section 53 of the Act. In this connection, it was submitted forcefully that there are ever so many circumstances present in the case which have always been looked upon as 'badges of fraud'. Learned counsel has referred to Twyne's case (1602) 3 Rep 80 and the nine circumstances pointed out in that decision as 'badges of fraud' which has been quoted by Kerr in his book 'Fraud and Mistake. The nine badges of fraud are thus :

"In Twyne's case, the following are mentioned as marks or badges of fraud under the statute: (I) The generality of the gift - that is, the inclusion therein of all the grantor's property, (2) the . grantor's continuance in possession; (3) Secrecy of the gift; (4) that it was made pcndente lite; (5) that there was a trust between the parties for the grantor's benefit; (6) unusual statements in the conveyance as to its having been made honestly, truly, and bona tide. To these may be added others; (7) as that the deed give the grantor generala power of revoking the conveyance; (8) that it contains false recitals, or false statements as to the consideration, etc.; (9) or that the consideration is grossly inadequate."

It was submitted that almost all the above badges of fraud except one or two are present in this case and as such it has to be held that the appellant has discharged the burden of showing the transaction to be a fraudulent one intended to delay or defeat the creditors and as such Ext. A1 is liable to be declared as void against him.

17. Thus, it was submitted that Ext. B2 release deed obtained by the second respondent would show that in spite of Ext. A1 sale deed, the transferor had continued in possession. Such continuation of the vendor in possession, is one of the badges of fraud, It was alleged that alienation was kept secret till the filing of the claim and that again is a 'badge of fraud'. The statement in the concluding portion of Ext. AI to the effect that "Vernacular matter is omitted."

18. On a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reasons to hold any of the above circumstances as 'badges of fraud' and to hold that Ext. A 1 is an alienation liable to be declared void under Section 53 of the Act. The fact that second respondent along with the two guarantors who have executed Ext. A1 has taken a release deed on payment of all instalment amounts due to the Kuri company cannot be taken as a circumstance to show that second respondent had continued in possession of the property even after Ext. Al. This is especially so in view of the recitals in Ext. A1 that even before its execution the claimant was in possession and enjoyment of the property. There is no other circumstance or evidentiary material on record to show that second respondent was in actual possession of the property even after Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is a registered sale deed and there is no reason to hold that the fact of alienation was kept as a secret till the date of filing of the claim application. In fact, on receipt of notice in the Execution Petition, both the Judgment-debtors have informed the Court of the alienation of the property sought to be attached and proceeded with. The statement in the concluding portion of Ext. Al cannot be considered as an unsual statement at all. On the other hand, it can only be considered as a common or usual assurance regarding the unencumbered nature of the property alienated and warranty against any encumbrance and consequential loss. The further recital that the property in question was acquired as per Ext. B4 utilising the funds supplied by the first respondent cannot be found to be a false recital for the only reason that in Ext. B4 the consideration is stated to have been received by the vendor therein from the father of the second respondent and not from the first respondent. The fact that the vendor in Ext. B4 has received the consideration from the father of the second respondent would not be a safe or clinching circumstance to hold that the consideration for purchase of the property as per Ext. B4 has not proceeded from the first respondent. At best, it can only be circumstances creating a doubt regarding the genuineness of the recitals in Ext. Al. There is also no force in the submission that Rs. 2,000/- mentioned is agrossly inadequate consideration for the sale when compared to the consideration of Rs. 1,500/-fixed in Ext. B4. Prima facie, there is no reason to hold that the amount is grossly inadequate in the light of the recitals in Ext. A1 to the effect that the vendor was only having a nominal interest in the property and the property was acquired even as per Ext. B4 for and on behalf of the first respondent and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. No other evidence to establish that the property was worth much more than Rs. 2,000/- was adduced in the case. As such, we do not find any justification to hold any of the circumstances as 'badges of fraud' as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get any relief on the basis that Ext. A1 has been proved to be a fraudulent transfer.