THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Vs. S. PADMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for declaring the payment of Rs. 38,692 -62 by the insolvents to the respondent, made on 17th July, 1972, fraudulent and void against the Official Assignee.

(2.) IN this report dated nth November, 1974, the Official Assignee has stated as follows:

(3.) IN the counter statement of the respondent, it is stated that she was born on 24th April, 1952. There were moneys belonging to her, which were invested in mortgages, etc. While she was a minor, her father had taken and utilised the money belonging to her. Thus, he had committed breach of his duty, which he owed to her as his ward, and made it appear as if it was a loan given to him. At the time of marriage on 14th September, 1969, she was given a dowry of Rs. 10,008, and notwithstanding the marriage, she continued to live with her father. Her husband died on 10th October, 1971, leaving behind the respondent and a female child, Renuka, and at that time, her father was in financial difficulties. The mother and brother of the respondent took the father to task for having improperly utilised the moneys, and, therefore, he, in reparation, paid to her under insistence, Rs. 38,692.62 on 17th July, 1972. What her father had done was a clear breach of trust, since, her moneys in his hands were held by him in trust. If that be so, there was no question of any debt. It is relevant to submit that her father had paid within two months prior to the date of insolvency, a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 to several unsecured creditors. Therefore, even assuming that to be a debt, the payments were in the course of the usual business and it cannot be called fraudulent preference of one creditor to another. It is only because the father realised the gravity of the breach committed to her, more so, by reason of the insistence of the mother and the brother, the money was paid. Therefore, it is not correct to state that there was no pressure. Hence, the petition is liable to dismissed.