SHANTILAL BARDICHAND MAHAJAN Vs. CHAMPALAL RADHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the transferee, by the ostensible sale for Rs. 10000/-, of a house by his father and his uncle, (who at that time ware indebted to the time of at least Rs. 7000/-, and had no other properties of much value), from the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Class I, Dhar, declaring the said sale void and inoperative as against the creditors, four of whom sued, in accordance with, though without mentioning, Section 53, Transfer of Property Act. The appellant had raised quite a number of questions in the memorandum, but in argument, the only ground pressed is that the suit should be dismissed, as there is no order permitting the four creditors to sue in a representative capacity, and no notices issued on the other creditors (known or unknown) at the instance of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE questions for decision are :

(3.) THE facts of the case are simple. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Onkarlal and bardicnand, uncle and father respectively of the appellant, had borrowed in 1951 money, at least from these four creditors, a total of Rs. 6700/- in round figures. On 19-6-1952 they sold a house the identity of which is not in dispute, to the appellant (defendant No. 3 in suit), son of defendant No. 2 and nephew of defendant No. 1, who had lust then come of age. The deed was registered, and the ostensible consideration was Rs. 10,000/- which in the lower court the defendant No. 3 tried to show, unconvincingly however, had been received by him from his maternal grandmother. The four creditors filed the present suit on 8-71953 alleging that the transfer had been made with the intention of defeating and delaying them in their realisation of the debts. Inter alia it was pleaded :