GOLLAPUDI VENKATAKRISHNAMA CHETTI Vs. LAKSHMI NARASIMHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is whether the mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is fraudulent within the meaning of Section 24 of the Insolvency Act, 11 and 12, Victoria, C. 21.

(2.) A promissory-note was executed and the title-deeds were deposited to secure the amount of the note on the 10th August 1908 by the Insolvents, Cantham & Co., defendants Nos. 1 to 4. They carried on their business on the 11th, the 12th was holiday. On the 13th, it was found that they had absconded and a creditor presented a petition of adjudication the same day. The insolvents have not appeared since.

(3.) The promissory-note is for a sum of Rs. 20,962.1-6. This is made up as follows: Rupees 6,500 is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the pro-note. Rupees 2,500 is said to have been paid to one Mallikarjunudu at defendants request. Rupees 3,000 is said to have been paid to Sanku Ramasami Chetti. Rupees 1,700--the amount the plaintiffs undertook to pay to one Radhakrishna s son on account of the defendants who owed that sum under a pro-note. Rupees 1,200, another amount the plaintiffs undertook to pay another creditor. Rupees 6,062-1-6--the amount which was due at that time to the plaintiffs by the defendants on account of prior dealings between the parties. Rupees 20,962-1-6.