O M CHIENE Vs. KISHUN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Allahabad, setting aside an order of the Insolvency Court declaring a certain sale- deed, dated 1 November 1929, standing in the name of the respondent, Kishen Prasad null and void.

(2.) The facts of the case can be shortly stated as follows : One Badri Prasad applied on 18 November 1929, to be adjudged an insolvent, and was so adjudged on 16 May 1930. Many years before this insolvency Badri Prasad had transferred certain of his property to his relations. On 22 September, 1924 he had mortgaged part of his property in favour of Sundar Lal, and on 11 May 1925, he had ostensibly sold some of his property to Kunj Behari Lal. It is to be observed that after this insolvency the Official Receiver moved to set aside both these transfers as being fraudulent, and the Insolvency Court has set them aside, and that decision has been confirmed by the learned District Judge.

(3.) These two transactions show that long before the actual insolvency Badri Prasad was disposing of his property amongst his relations with a view to defeating his creditors. It appears that sometime before October 1929, Badri Prasad had entered into an agreement with one Babu Lal to purchase certain property. Babu Lal, for some reason or another, refused to transfer his property; and in consequence a suit was instituted by Badri Prasad, in the Court of the Munsif of Kundia, Partabgarh, claiming specific performance of the contract. On 1 October 1929, a compromise was effected between Badri Prasad and Babu Lal, and this compromise was in due course decreed. As a result of the compromise, a sale-deed of this property was executed on 1 November 1929, by Babu Lal in favour not of Badri Prasad, but of his son-in-law, Kishen Prasad. It is the allegation of the Official Receiver that the real purchaser of the property was Badri Prasad, and that the name of Kishen Prasad was menely inserted in the sale-deed in order to defeat creditors. It is clear that at the date of the compromise and the date of the sale-deed Badri Prasad must have been contemplating insolvency, because within 17 days of the date of the sale-deed he actually made an application to be adjudged an insolvent. It is impossible for me to believe that the causes of this insolvency occurred within a few days of his application. Two earlier transactions, which have been set aside as being fraudulent, show that Badri Prasad had been preparing for this insolvency for some years.