AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1150 ::1964 (1) SCJ 109 ::1964 (1) SCJ 168 ::1964 3 SCR 985 ::1963 2 SCWR 449 ::1963 SCD 876

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Andhra Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. K. Das, K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar , JJJ

(A) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.53— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.6 R.1, O.8 R.2— Whether defence based on S.53 has been taken - Written statement - Construction. In paragraph 2 of the Written Statement the 1st defendant stated:- "The said sale deed is a sham, nominal and collusive document not intended to pass any title but brought about to screen the suit properties from the creditors of defendants 2 to 5. No consideration passed under the sale deed and the recitals thereof in the document are fictitious and make believer. The paragraph however, further went on to add: "It is further submitted that even if the sale deed is true, it is in fraud of creditors including the plaintiff and not binding on them." In paragraph 3 the allegation was made that the plaintiff was the relative of defendants 2 to 5, that the plaintiff and the vendors were natives of the same place and that the sale deed was clandestinely brought into existence at Madras at a time when defendants 2 to 5 were hard- pressed by the plaintiff and other creditors and unable to pay their debts at Vizianagaram and that in order to put the properties beyond the reach of the creditors, defendants 2 to 4 seemed to have hit upon the fraudulent device of the alleged sale to the plaintiff: Held that the written statement had not been artistically drafted, keeping in view the re....