MATHEW CHACKO Vs. P C CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant, who has lost in both the courts is the appellant. THEre is no controversy about the facts which are as follows: -

(2.) ONE Eappen and Chacko, two brothers, owned the suit properties and they sold it to one Koshy on 31-9-1105. There was an application on 4-5-1107, Ext. A, to adjudicate these two people as insolvents and the said petition is I. P. No. 21/1107. On 30-11-1108, both of them were adjudicated insolvents. On 31-2-1111, the adjudication was annulled and an application to review the order of annulment was filed on 26-4-1111. On 16-12-1111, Koshy, the alienee from Eappen and Chacko sold the property to the present appellant as evidenced by Ext. VI. On 13-2-1113 the review petition was allowed and the order of annulment was set aside. On 20-4-1115 the Official Receiver filed an application, Ext. C, to annul the sale deed executed by the insolvent in favour of Koshy on 31-9-1105 and the court, by its order dated 11-1- 1116, set aside the transfer. It may be stated that though the present appellant had a registered sale deed in his favour from koshy as early as 16-12-1111, the appellant was not made a party by the official Receiver in his application, Ext. C. Nor did the Official Receiver mention anything about the transaction of sale covered by Ext. VI, much less did he attack it in any manner.

(3.) THE trial court held that the defendant was bound by the insolvency proceedings and that he was not entitled to challenge the validity of the sale by the Official Receiver in favour of the plaintiff. According to the trial court, once the sale in favour of Koshy has been challenged and set aside in insolvency proceedings in law the position is that koshy has no title to convey to the defendant. THE trial court accepted the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff was only a name lender and benamidar for the insolvents. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has purchased the properties from Koshy in good faith and for consideration, the trial court held that those circumstances will not help the defendant to rely on the sale deed in his favour by Koshy. But the trial court held that the defendant, after the purchase under Ext. VI has paid the debts charged on the properties and that the plaintiff is bound to reimburse the defendant in that amount and also the value of improvements claimed by the defendant in the sum of about Rs. 760. As a condition of the plaintiff recovering the properties, the trial court directed the plaintiff to pay these amounts. THE trial court also accepted the case of the defendant about the 6 cents of land in the suit property purchased by him in the revenue proceedings and the decree in favour of the plaintiff excluded the said 6 cents of land.