THANKAMMA Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are respondents 4 to 11 in I.A.No.885 of 1981 in I.P. No. 1 of 1973 filed by the Official Receiver, the first respondent herein, against one Irudukavil Krishnan, who is the brother inlaw of the first revision petitioner. The said Krishnan who was the first respondent in the I.P., and the second respondent his brother, are dead and the revision petitioners are the wife and children of the second respondent. The above I. A. was filed to annul the transfers made by the first respondent insolvent in favour of the second respondent in respect of the petition schedule properties. The first respondent conducted a public examination of the insolvent and found that the transactions by the insolvent in favour of his brother were made with dishonest intention to defeat his creditors. It was also found that the sale deeds were executed for a nominal consideration, that possession had not passed to. the transferee and that the insolvent himself was in possession. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court, which held that consideration for the transactions was not inadequate and the transfers made on the basis of Ext.B1 agreement dated 7-3-1966 were legal and valid. In appeal, the court below upheld the contentions of the first respondent and reversed the order of the Trial Court. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) It was submitted that the findings and conclusions of the court below are not legal and proper. It should have noted that in the wake of the failure to execute the sale deeds as per Ext.B1, the second respondent transferee sent a notice to the insolvent and as a result of mediation the impugned sale deeds were executed. The consideration paid was adequate and the transactions were bona fide. There was a charge upon the properties, which was discharged by the assignee. The insolvent had only fractional interest in some of the properties and that he did not try to make them out of the reach of his creditors, as alleged. The impugned order is unsustainable and he has prayed that it may be set aside.

(3.) Heard.