AMIR AHMAD Vs. SYED HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for partition in which a question arose as to the-title of the rival claimants. On 2 February, 1925, one Abdul Ghani, who was heavily in debt sold his share in the house in question to one Abdul Qaiyum. On 19 October 1926, Abdul Ghani himself applied for being adjudicated an insolvent and he was declared an insolvent on 21st. December 1926. On the following day, namely, 22 December, 1926, Abdul Qaiyum sold the property to the present defendant, Saiyid Hasan. On 25 June 1927. on an application made by the official receiver the sale deed of 2 February, 1925, which had been executed by the insolvent in favour of Abdul Qaiyum was annulled by the Court. In that proceeding Abdul Qaiyum alone had boon impleaded and did not appear, the subsequent transferee, Saiyid Hasan was not impleaded by the official receiver at all. After having obtained the order of annulment: the official receiver on 4th. August 1927, transferred the property to the present plaintiff Amir Ahmad. As Amir Ahmad did not obtain possession of the house, the present suit was instituted by him on 21srt August 1930, for partition and separation of his share.

(2.) The plaint was very vague and did not clearly state how Saiyid Hasan came on the scene. The written statement was in the same way vague and did not contain an express plea that Abdul Qaiyum. was a bona fide transferee for value nor did it contain any express plea that the application did not lie under the Insolvency Act at all. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim holding that inasmuch, as Saiyid Hasan, the defendant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary must be taken to have been a bona fide purchaser for good consideration his title cannot be impeached.

(3.) This view is challenged in appeal. Our attention has been drawn to a large number of cases which have a close bearing on the point arising in this case, but there is no case which can be said, to be directly in point.