Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In 1901 certain persons, among whom were the respondents, borrowed a sum of Rs. 19,999 from the Raja Narendra Lal Khan Bahadur and executed a mortgage in favour of his wife, Rani Mrinalini Debi. In 1906 the Rani put the mortgage in suit. Defences of various kinds were entered. The male appellant in this case acted as pleader for all the defendants and on their behalf effected a compromise of the suit. This compromise was dated February 19, 1907. Payments under the compromise not having been duly made, the Rani proceeded to execute afresh and some properties were sold, but eventually and before the decree was fully executed the Rani, on February 7, 1915, sold the unexecuted decree for Rs. 11,500 to the female appellant, who is the wife of the male appellant. Thereafter the female appellant proceeded to execute the decree. Objections were made by several of the judgment-debtors. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present appeal to follow minutely the progress of the execution proceedings. It is sufficient to state that some of the properties were brought to sale and that the female appellant, on February 18, 1918, obtained leave to bid and that she herself purchased certain properties at the sale.

2. The present suit was raised by the judgment-debtors to have it declared that the purchase of the unexecuted decree was really a purchase benami of the male appellant; that it was therefore bad as a purchase by a pleader of the property in suit with concealment of the fact that he was the real purchaser and praying for appropriate relief.

3. The Subordinate Judge found that the purchase was benami, and ordered a reconveyance of the decree to the plaintiffs on payment of Rs. 13,750, being the amount paid on the transfer of the decree plus certain sums which had been paid to save the property from being taken for other executions. The High Court so far affirmed the judgment, but added that the defendants must also convey the properties purchased by the female defendant at the sale in execution of the decree.

4. As both Courts had found that the purchase of the decree by the wife was truly benami for the husband, who was at that time the pleader, the appellants were obliged to accept this fact. Their argument, however, came to this: They admitted that the result is that they are bound to surrender the unexecuted decree to the respondents at the price they paid for it; but they say that the decree was a good decree in their hands and that sales actually effected under it must stand. At the time of the sales of the properties in question the male appellant had long ceased to be pleader; the respondents were represented by other pleaders, and it was not said that any knowledge he had obtained while he acted as pleader was in any way conducive to his action in buying the properties through his wife when the properties were offered for sale upon the execution of the decree.