HARRY POPE Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, RANGOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon dated 8 March 1932, whereby the Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, set aside an order dated 14 December 1931, made in exercise of its original jurisdiction, and declared that the deed of sale hereinafter referred to was void as against the respondent. The respondent did not appear in the appeal.

(2.) The deed of sale in question was dated 27 February 1931, and was made between Mrs. Edith Young, who carried on business as a milliner and dressmaker at 15, Phayre Street, Rangoon, and the appellant; Mrs. Young thereby assigned to the appellant the stock-in-trade then lying in her shop and all her book debts then due and owing in consideration of the payment by the appellant to her bank of the sum of Rs. 20,229, being the amount of her overdraft with the bank. The appellant had guaranteed Mrs. Young's overdraft with her bank up to the sum of Rs. 25,000, and the bank were pressing the appellant for payment. On 16 June 1931; Mrs. Young was adjudicated an insolvent. On 7 July 1931, the respondent, as the assignee in insolvency of Mrs. Young's estate, made the application, out of which the present appeal arises to have the deed of sale declared void as against the respondent, in respect of the provisions of Ss. 55 and 56, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. The respondent's contentions however have been confined to S. 55, and it is unnecessary to refer to S. 56. S. 55 provides as follows : " 55. Any transfer of property, not being a transfer made before and in consideration of marriage, made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration shall, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent within two years after the date of the transfer, be void against the Official Assignee.',

(3.) The sole question in the case is whether the deed of sale was a transfer " in good faith and for valuable consideration " within the meaning of S. 55, and it is clearly for the respondent to establish the contrary in order to succeed in his application: Official Receiver V/s. P.L.K.M.B.M. Chettyar Firm, AIR 1931 PC 75. There is little dispute about the facts, and the evidence is referred to in detail by Sen, J, who decided the case on the original side of the High Court. In carrying on her business, which was started in 1929, Mrs. Young financed it by means of the overdraft of Rs. 25,000 permitted by her bank on the guarantee of the appellant, who deposited the title deeds of his home with the bank and a promissory note for Rs. 25,043 signed by himself and Mrs. Young. The appellant also guaranteed Mrs. Young's rent for the shop for three years from 1929.