LAXMAN SINGH Vs. BINRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the trial Court the plaintiff's suit for possession of Suit No. 89/1 of mouza Ava Yunaspur and Suit No. 19 of mouza Shewaga Khurda was dismissed on the ground that the sale-deed in his favour, dated 12th May 1920, was bogus and fraudulent. This decision was reversed on appeal, and the present appellants, Laxman Singh and Shankar are now appealing against the decision of the lower appellate Court. They have each purchased one of the fields, but their purchases were subsequent to the alleged sale to the plaintiff Binraj.

(2.) ON the date fixed for hearing, an additional ground of appeal was raised on behalf of the appellants, urging that the sale to the plaintiff should have been held void under Section 64, Civil P.C. on the ground that the deed was registered during the attachment of Suit No. 89/1; but the ground was subsequently withdrawn when it was found that the actual fact was that registration was effected before the attachment.

(3.) IT is urged that Binraj must have known of the other debts owed by Tota-ram and, as the sale in his favour covered all Totaram's immovable property, he must have known that the sale in his favour would defeat the other creditors. But even assuming that he had that knowledge, it does not follow that he is not a purchaser in good faith. The consideration for the sale to him was part satisfaction of a debt due to him from Totaram, and, in the case I have cited above (p. 829), it has been said: Where transferee is a creditor of the transferrer, and accepts the transfer in satisfaction of the debt due to him, though with the knowledge that his doing so has the effect of defeating other creditors of the transferrer, the transfer may come within the last paragraph of Section 53, T. P. Act.