CHANDARBHAN Vs. HAR GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ono Hargopal was the owner of the property in suit, which on 6th February 1906 he conveyed to his wife and mother (the defendants Nos. 3 and 2) by way of family settlement. He was not indebted to any one at that time. The document was intended to make some provision for thorn. Ha had no other property left with him on that date.

(2.) On 6th August 1933 the present plaintiff brought a suit against Hargopal claiming a sum of Rs. 260 on foot of a hundi bearing1 date 3rd January 1936. August 17th, 1906, was fixed for the hearing of the case, but on 13th August 1933 the defendant filed a confession of judgment on which a decree was duly made against him on 17th August 1906. In execution of this decree the property in suit was attached as the property of Hargopal, bat was released on objections taken by the defendants on 3rd July 1910. Hence the present suit by the decree-holder to obtain a declaration that the said conveyance was fraudulent and collusive, and that it was void as against the plaintiff. The defendants in reply urged that it was a good and valid conveyance executed with the object of making provisions for the maintenance of the defend ants who had both legal and moral claims for it against the first defendant Hargopal. They further urged that the hundi on which the plaintiff had obtained the decree of 17th August 1906 was collusive and without consideration and that it had been antedated to make it out that the plaintiff was a creditor of the first defendant on the date the transfer was made by him to the other defendants.

(3.) Both the Courts below have found that the hundi in question had been antedated. They doubt very much the fact of the plaintiff being really a creditor at all, but without committing themselves to a definite finding on the point, they hold that ho was not a creditor at all on the date of the execution of the family settlement. They have held the conveyance to have been made at a time the vendor was not indebted at all to any one and have upheld it as a good family settlement and dismissed the plaintiff s suit.