ABURUBAMMAL Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Justice: By an agreement in writing dated the 2nd August, 1921 the insolvent purported to give to the garnishee his motor car as security for an advance by her to him of Rs. 3,000. It was a term of the agreement that the insolvent should have the right to use the car and should keep it in good order, and deliver it up on demand. He also agreed that, if he exercised any acts of ownership over the car, he should be criminally liable, a stipulation which can have no effect in law.

(2.) The other relevant facts arc that the loan was also secured by a joint promissory note of the insolvent and another renewed on November 9, 1921 to the end of January, 1922, and that by a letter dated February 10, 1922 from her Vakil, she demanded from the insolvent under threat of criminal proceedings that the car should be returned to her. The commencement of the insolvency was in May, 1922.

(3.) On these facts it is contended by the Official Assignee that he is entitled to the car free from any charge in favour of the garnishee as, being at the commencement of the insolvency with the consent of the true owner in the possession, order and disposition of the insolvent in his trade or business, and therefore under Section 52 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, the property of the insolvent, divisible amongst his creditors; and it has been so held by Coutts-Trotter, J.