PRAKASH NARAIN Vs. RAM CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by defendant 1 in a suit in which the lower appellate Court has granted to the plaintiff a decree declaring that his sale-deed of 11th December 1922, is a genuine document and that the house which he has purchased by that document from defendant 2 is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree of defendant 1 against defendant 2. The facts, as found by the lower appellate Court, are that on 8 August 1921, defendant 1 obtained this decree against defendant 2. In execution of that decree he attached the house in question. Subsequent to that attachment the judgment-debtor, defendant 2, executed a sale-deed in question in favour of the plaintiff. It is further found by the lower appellate Court that the sale consideration was only Rs. 100, and the value of the house at the date of the transfer was Rs. 200. It is also found that the judgment-debtor had left himself without any other property whatever. The Munsif dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the transaction in question was fraudulent within the meaning of Section 53, T.P. Act, being for an inadequate sum and with the intention of defeating the creditors of the transferrer. The lower appellate Court reversed that finding chiefly on the following grounds: I do not think that Rs. 100 ware grossly inadequate consideration for it.... I have shown above that the sale took place in pursuance of an agreement made on the 19 November 1920. Therefore I hold that the disputed sale-deed is not a transaction flotations and collusive and entered into with intent to defeat any creditor. The plaintiff was a bona fide transferee for consideration.

(2.) It is objected that on the finding that there was no fraudulent transfer, no appeal lay to this Court, and reference was made to: Durga Chaudhrani V/s. Jawahir Singh [1891] 18 Cal. 23. But in Dhannamal V/s. Moti Sagar , their Lordships of the Privy Council had laid it down in 1927: It is clear, however, that the proper effect of a proved fact is a question of law.

(3.) Accordingly we consider that the question of whether Rs. 100 is or is not a grossly inadequate consideration for a house which is found to be by the lower appellate Court worth Rs. 200 is a question of law, as it is an inference from proved facts. Similarly there is no doubt that the construction of the sale-deed in question and of the agreement of 19 November 1920, are questions for the consideration of this Court, The agreement of 19 December 1920, provided that defendant 2 would sell to the plaintiff all his property within one month. That agreement was not carried out within one month, and therefore it appears to us that the agreement came to an end.