PEARY LAL Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an execution first appeal and has arisen under the following circumstances: A certain suit, No. 428 of 1922, was instituted by two persons Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against one Ganeshi Lal as Defendant No. 1 and the Allahabad Bank Ltd. as the Defendant No. 2. The suit of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar was decreed for a sum of about Rs. 8,000 against Ganeshi Lal, but was dismissed as against the Bank. The Bank was awarded costs to the amount of Rs. 5-13-12. The decree was passed on the 27 of March 1923. On the 12 of May 1924 the Allahabad Bank applied for the attachment; of the decree obtained by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against Ganeshi Lal in order to realize the money due to the Bank. Previous to this application for attachment, by a sale-deed, dated the 6 of February 1924, Baij Nath and Murli Dhar had sold the decree held by them against Ganeshi Lal to the appellant, Pearey Lal. Ganeshi Lal was declared an insolvent. Peary Lal, as a transferee of the decree obtained by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against Ganeshi Lal, got himself entered in the schedule of creditors. The Allahabad Bank had a debt payable by Ganeshi Lal which arose out of a different transaction and in that capacity the Bank was also entered in the schedule of creditors of Ganeshi Lal.

(2.) The Allahabad Bank in their application mentioned the fact that Baij Nath and Murli Dhar had sold their decree to Pearey Lal and that Pearey Lal had obtained an entry into the schedule of creditors of Ganeshi Lal. The Bank asserted that the transfer to Pearay Lal by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar was a fictitious one and prayed that the decree might be attached and the Insolvency Court might be requested to send the money that may be due on account of the decree of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar in Court for payment to the Bank.

(3.) Pearey Lal raised two objections: First, he said the question of title as between the Bank and Pearey Lal should be settled by the Insolvency Court; and secondly he said that he was a bona fide transferee for value and the decree was not attachable as the property of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar. The Court below has found both the points against Pearey Lal and hence the appeal.