JAGANNATH Vs. YUGAL NARAIN PUROHIT ADVOCATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, made on November 15, 1983, in Special Appeal No. 18/81. The respondent had purchased the property from Bhadaarmal on May 17, 1958, Subsequently, the vender was declared insolvent. Therefore, when the proceedings were sought to be taken in respect of those properties, the appellant filed on application to declare the transfer of the lands made in favour of the respondent under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to be a fraudulent one. All the Court have concurrently found, as a fact, that the sale transaction under Ex. -A1 is a bona fide sale for valuable consideration executed in good faith and, therefore, the sale was not executed to defraud the creditors.

(2.) Shri B. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the respondent is no other than a practicing advocate. He having obtained the sale deed, could not get physical possession of the property. Had he taken the physical possession, the things would have been different. In an appeal filed by the insolvent himself, the High Court had stayed delivery of the possession subject to payment of rent. The finding that the possession was taken, thereby, is vitiated by error of law. These facts have not been properly considered by the Courts below in reaching that conclusion. We find no force in the contention.

(3.) Admittedly, Ex. A-1, sale-deed makes a clear recital that the possession of the property sold thereunder was delivered to the vendee-respondent. The learned single Judge of the High Court after elaborate consideration of the evidence recorded thus: