AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In S. A. No. 443 of 1923
The plaintiff''s suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance on the District Munsif''s finding that the sale-deeds, Exs. D, E and F were brought
about to defraud 1st defendant''s creditor, viz., 4th defendant. The Subordinate Judge also found as a conclusion of fact that these transactions
were not, (sic)a fide.
He, however, stave the plaintiff, who was a purchaser under Ex. F, a charge for Rs. 450 on the suit properties, on the ground that his vendor
Maruthanayagam Pillai had paid Rs 400 in discharging a prior mortgage (Ex. C) on 1st defendnt''s house in Dindigul. The learned Judge did hot
rely on the doctrine of subrogation, but he gave this relief out of equitable considerations. In so doing he overlooked the law that there can be no
equity in favour of a purchaser in fraud of creditors who acts without bona fides Vide Karuppan Ambalagaran v. Muhammad Spkuth Levvai (1).
Even assuming that some consideration passed for the sale under Ex. F to plaintiff which the District Munsif found against, the Subordinate
Judge has not clearly found to be established. The plaintiff has no right to be paid what his vendor paid under a speculative and fraudulent
purchase.
The appeal is allowed and the decree of the lower Appellate Court is reversed and the decree of the District Munsif dismissing the suit is
restored with costs in this Court.
In S. A. No. 1489 of 1923.
On the findings of the Courts below, and in view of the result of the connected Second Appeal No 443 of 1923, this second appeal is dismissed
with costs.