Law:

Section:

(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)-- S. 53-Suit to avoid transfer of immovable property brought for benefit of all creditors-Held, must be regarded as suit under provisions of S. 53-Fact that such suit can be filed as a representative suit-Does not mean that it must be filed in that form alone. Mst. Banto Devi v. Firm Rai Sahib Lal Shiv Parshad-Sri A I R 1943 Lah. 96; Deokab Partab v. Ram Devi and another A I R 1941 Rang. 76; Firm Rambhondas-Bulakidas v. Orambala Dassi and others A I R 1954 Cal. 440; Hajf Faqir Bux and others v. Pandit Thakar Prasad and others A I R 1941 Oudh 457 and Kallubandi Manjamma v. Kethe Rangappa and others A I R 1954 Mad. 173 distinguished. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) S. 53-Principles of S. 53 only applicable in Punjab-Suit cannot be defeated even if plaintiff fails to adhere strictly to technical requirements of section. (c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) S. 53 -Requirements of S. 53 on legal plane-Creditor, in a suit under S. 53, not prevented from making allegations indicating want of consideration and bad faith. Sachitanand Tewari v. Radhapat Pathak A I R 1928 All. 234 not relevant. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, J.--This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 16-10-1974, of Malik Muhammad Afzal, Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby he decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 for a declaration that the sale of property in dispute made by Siraj Din deceased in favour of his two daughters, the appellants herein, was fraudulent and without consideration, and had been made to defeat his creditors, and was therefore of no effect as against respondent No. 1 and other creditors of Siraj Din. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Siraj Din, borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000, from Barkat Ali and Muhammad Manzoor, and executed a pronote in their favour on 18-2-1963. He also borrowed another sum of Rs. 40,000, from Haji Chiragh Din and executed a pronote in his favour on 18-2-1963. Thereafter the three payees endorsed the two pronotes in favour of Lai Din respondent No. 1 for valuable consideration. Lai Din as holder of the pronotes pressed Siraj Din for payment, and upon the latter's refusal he brought two suits…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492