Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. The next circumstance to be noticed in this connection is that defendants 2 and 4 are class relations of the first defendant. Apart from that, the first defendant had no other debts excepting the loan obtained by him from the Co-operative Society which was payable by instalments in 15 years and the interest charged was only at 9 per cent per annum. There was absolutely no pressure from the Bank or anybody else necessitating the alienations by the first defendant. This indicates that the main intention of the first defendant was to convert the properties into cash so that he can place the properties beyond the reach of his creditors especially the plaintiff to whom he owed monies under Ex. A-1. There is yet another important circumstances showing the fraudulent intention of the first defendant. The sale deeds were registered at Parasalai in Kerala State after including an item of property in Kerala to which the first defendant had absolutely no right, even though the suit properties are situated in Tamil Nadu. This was done with a view in maintain the secrecy of the sale deeds so that he can secret the amounts and defeat the rights of his creditors. These are all important circumstances which will have a bearing on the question relating to the intention of the debtor as observed by the Supreme Court in C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Arji Papa Rao (1964)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 46 : (1964)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 46 : (1964)1 S.C.J. 186 : (1964)2 S.C.R. Supp. 55 : A.L.R. 1963 S.C. 1150.

25. Coming to the second item of the suit properties, we find that the first defendant sold it to the second defendant under a registered sale deed dated 25.3.1975. Ex. A-8 is the registration copy of the sale deed and Ex. B-31 is its original. The second defendant died subsequently. However, for the notice Ex. A-6 sent by the plaintiff, he had sent a reply under Ex. A-10. In the said reply notice, he did not give any particulars asto the actual price paid by him and how it was paid. Even in his written statement, no such particulars have been furnished. Admittedly, he is also a relation of the first defendant. It is elicited that the son-in-law of the 2nd defendant one Nagappan is the brother-in-law of the first defendant. A sum of Rs. 8,000 is shown as the consideration for the said sale deed. There is no recital in the sale deed to show that the said property was sold for discharging any debts of the first defendant. On the contrary, the recitals in the sale deed show that the entire consideration of Rs. 8,000 was paid in cash to the first defendant on the date of sale. Admittedly, it was not paid before the Registrar. The sixth defendant has been examined as D.W. 4 in this case. According to him, the sale was completed through a broker. He has admitted that he has no knowledge about the payment of consideration for the sale. There is another clinching circumstances which will go to show that the said transaction cannot be a genuine one. It is seen from the evidence that the first defendant had purchased the said property on 21.9.1974 for Rs. 11,200 and it was sold to the second defendant within a year after his purchase for a price much lower than the price for which he had purchased the same a year ago. The only explanation offered in this connection is that there was a fall in the price of paddy, and, therefore, the land was sold for Rs. 8,000 to the second defendant. On the face of it, such an explanation is totally unacceptable. There is no evidence available in this case to show that there was any urgency for the first defendant to sell the property for a lower price within a short time after his purchase. It is also important to note that the learned Commissioner in his report and plan Exs. C-1 and C-2 has valued this property at Rs. 13,200. Apart from that, we find that the second respondent has executed a Will in favour of the seventh defendant who is none other than the wife of the brother of the first defendant. Therefore, it was rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff that the said sale deed is only a device to place the property beyond the reach of the creditors and ultimately the idea is to get back the property under the said Will. Here again, we find that with a view to maintain secrecy of the transaction, the sale deed was not registered at Nagercoil, but it was registered at Parasalai at Kerala State after including an item of property in Kerala to which the first defendant had no title.