Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TOPIC-FRADULENT TRANSFERS
ASSTT. PROFESSOR
SECTION. A
1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First of all, I would like to thank my teacher of the subject “Property Law”, Dr. Manish
Singh, for providing every bit of help and also showing the way in which to proceed and how
to go about the project. I would also like to thank my parents, friends and others who helped
me immensely at every step and gave every possible bit of help that I needed in preparing the
project and making it look presentable in a good way. I would also like to thank the library
staff of RMLNLU who provided me with books that I needed in making and preparing the
project and other pieces of information and help that was required. At last I would like to
sincerely thank God who gave me the much needed strength and power to go ahead with the
2|Page
Table of Contents
Table of Cases 02
Introduction 03
Sham Transfers 07
Burden of Proof 13
Conclusion 14
Bibliography 15
3|Page
Table of Authorities
Table of Cases:
Twyne’s case. 05
Edwards v. Harben 05
Nath v. Dhunbaiji 06
Middleton v. Collak 11
Vinayak v. Kaniram 12
4|Page
INTRODUCTION
Every owner of a property has right to transfer his property as he likes. There must be a
bonfire intention to transfer. If there is a Fraudulent Intention, the intention of defeating
the interest of creditor or interest of any subsequent transferee, the transfer is not valid in
the eyes of law. These transfers arise in debtor and creditor relations, particularly with
insolvent debtors. The action against such debtors is typically brought by creditors or by
bankruptcy trustees. Here in fraudulent transfer, the object of transfer would be bad in
eyes of equity and justice though it is valid in law. In some cases fraudulent transfers are
valid in law but not void, but because they are made with malafide intention, equity
would render it voidable by the person who was so defrauded. This principle of equity has
been incorporated in Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This section disallows
a person to convey or alienate his property when such conveyance defeats or delays the
interest of his creditor or any subsequent transferee.
5|Page
Section 53 & Its Essentials
Section 53 deals with the Doctrine of Fraudulent transfers. It provides that:-
6|Page
ENGLISH LAW ON FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
The English law regarding the fraudulent transfer is depended upon the Twyne’s1 case. In
this case Pierce was indebted to Twyne and also to C. C filed a suit against Pierce for
satisfaction of his debt, but when the suit was pending in the court, Pierce who was in the
possession of goods and chattels, in secret made a general deed of gift of all his goods and
chattels to Twyne, in satisfaction of his debt, without any obstruction that Pierce
continued in possession of the goods, and marked them with his own mark. Afterwards C
had judgment against Pierce and when his goods were sought to be seized in execution of
the judgment, Twyne and others resisted. Here the question arises whether the gift in
favor of Twyne was fraudulent, the court held that:
1. The gift had the signs and marks of fraud, because the gift is general, there is no
necessity for the donor to do this. For it is commonly said, quod dolosus
vesatur in generalibus.
2. The donor continued in possession and used them as his own, so it clearly shows
that he had defrauded and deceived the creditor.
5. Even after the gift was made, the donor was still in possession and therefore here
there was a trust between the parties and the fraud is covered by the trust.
6. The gift deed contains that it was made truly, honestly and bonfire.
So in this case we should observe that, even if there was a true debt due to Twyne, but the
gift which was made with no consideration and bonfire, and it shall be deemed that a gift
made with any trust in favor of donor is considered to be done with fraud.
In another case regarding the same issue, Edwards v. Harben2, the judgment was given by
Buller,. J. he said if the possession is not followed by deed, it is deemed to be done with
fraudulent intent and it is void.
1
Reported in 3, coke, 80.
2
2 Term Rep. 587
7|Page
INDIAN LAW ON FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
Section 53 of TPA as it is originally stood was based on the statutes of Elizabeth. Now,
this section is in consonance with that of the English statute. The first part of the section
deals with the transfers in fraud of creditors, and the second deals with the fraud of
subsequent purchaser. A transfer though it may not offend this section could be still be
avoided either under Section 55 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or
Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, and a provision saving insolvency law
is introduced in the section.
This section is applicable only where the transaction is transfer of property within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Act. In the case of Sunder Lal v. Gurusaran Lal3, it was held
that relinquishment of share by one co-parcener in favor of other is not a transfer of
property within meaning of this section and Section 53 does not apply. Surrender is not a
transfer of property, but in the case of Nath v. Dhunbaiji4, the court held that surrender by
a life-estate holder is a transfer and it is covered by this section. In the case of Joshua v.
Alliance Bank5, a settlement was provided for the appointment and it was found that the
appointment was done to defeat or delay the creditors. Therefore observing the facts, the
court held that appointment made with reference to the settlement was fraudulent transfer.
Naturally a question is arises regarding the Section 53 of TPA, that when the
consideration is good in part. If the transfer was for the purpose of delaying or defeating
creditors, the transaction will be set aside as there was fraud in it. But if a part of the
consideration is utilized for paying off a mortgage debt of the transferor, then either the
transfer would be treated as valid to that extent or if the transfer is set aside the vendee is
given charge on the property.
3
A.I.R 1938 Oudh 65.
4
(1899) 23 Bom. 1.
5
(1895) 22 Cal. 185.
8|Page
SHAM TRANSFERS
Sham transfer means fictitious transfer. When the transferor does not intend that the
property should be really vested in the transferee, such transfers are therefore unreal or
colourable and never meant to operate between the parties. Such transfers are fictitious
transfers. Benami transaction is also a sham transfer because the real owner has no
intention that property should belong to ostensible owner. It can be clearly explained by
the following cases.
In the case of Jangali Tewari v. Babban Tewari6, a sham transfer is not a real transfer at
all. The intention of the real owner is not necessarily fraudulent. So, such transfers do not
require to be avoided because the real title already vests in the transferor.
In the case of Petherpermal Chetty v. Muniandi Servai7, a sale deed of land was executed
in June 1895 in favor of the predecessor of the appellant. The transaction was a benami
transaction, it was not real. An equitable mortgagee of the land sued in September 1895,
to establish his lien on the ground that the sale was intended to defraud creditors and
obtained a decree by which the equitable mortgagee was paid off and the mortgage was
discharged. On the death of the vendor of the land, the appellant, legal representative of
the purchaser was sued by the heir of the vendor (respondent in the case) for the recovery
of the land. The defence argument was that the plaintiff, on account of his participation in
the fraudulent attempt to defeat his creditor, was not entitled to recover possession of the
land.
Persons have been allowed to recover property which they had assigned away, where they
had the intention to defraud or delay creditors, who, in fact, were never injured. But when
fraudulent or illegal purpose has actually been effected by mean of the colourable grant,
the legal maxim in pari delicto potior est condition possidentis applies. The
court will help neither party. It says let the estate lie where it falls. To enable a fraudulent
party to retain property transferred to him in order to effect a fraud must, according to the
authorities, be effected. Then alone, does the fraudulent grantor or transferor, lose the
right to claim the aid or support of the law to recover the property he has parted with. The
principle however will not apply in the case if the transferor seeks for possession from the
transferee before the fraud is effectuated.
In the case of Immani Appa Rao v. Gollapalhili Rama Lingamurthi8, a sale of property
was made with the mutual consent of the vendor and the vendee to defraud the creditors
of the vendor. There was no consideration and the transferee also agreed to act as a
6
A.I.R 1982 All. 316..
7
(1907-08) LR 35 IA 98.
8
(1962) 3 SCR 739.
9|Page
benamidar until the transferor required him to reconvey the property to his sons. The
transferor and his sons trespassed and occupied the property, as the creditors were
defrauded. The transferor, in defence, urged that the transferee has no rights in the
property as the transfer was a fraudulent transfer. So in this case the court observed that:-
The transferors emphasized that the doctrine which is pre-eminently applicable to the
present case is ex dolo malo non oritur action or ex turpi causa non
oritur actio. It means they contended that the right of action cannot arise out of fraud
or out of transgression of law. According to them it is necessary that the possession
should lie where it lies, in pari delicto potior est condition possidentis. The
law favors him who is actually in possession in case where there is guilty of fraud on both
the parties. The principle of public policy is that no court will lend its aid to a man who
founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. If the cause of action arises
from the plaintiff’s side, the court says that he has no right to be assisted; it is same in the
case of defendants. The Court also said that there is no question of estoppels in such a
case because the fraud in question was agreed by both the parties and both the parties
have assisted each other in carrying out fraud. It also said, in such a cases the transferee
would be guilt for liability of double fraud, as he joined transferor joined in the fraudulent
scheme and participated in commission of the transfer and he committed another fraud by
suppressing from the Court the fraudulent character of the transfer when he made out the
claim for the recovery of the properties conveyed to him. The transfer was not supported
by any consideration and therefore no title is transferred to him.
So in the view of public interests, the Court held that the plea of fraud is allowed and tried
and it is upheld that the estate should lie where it rests.
Notwithstanding the rights of transferor and a benami transferee, if the transfer was made
to defeat the creditors, a creditor himself can ignore a benami transaction and can proceed
against the property as it was of the transferor. The creditor need not have to set it aside
under this section because, benami transaction is not a transfer at all.
We have to note that, whether the transfer is real or sham, it is depended upon the facts
and circumstances in each case. If it is clearly shown that the very object of the transfer
was to defeat the interest of creditors, the transfer can be avoided by the creditor under
this section.
But the present scenario is changed. The Benami Transaction Act, 1988 provides that
properties purchased in the name of ostensible owner or benamidar shall belong to
benamidar and real owner cannot claim from him. This Act now treats benami transfer as
a real transfer under which the benamidar becomes real owner. However, Section 3 of this
Act says that the provisions of Section 53 of TPA or any law relating to transfers for
illegal purposes are not affected.
10 | P a g e
How Fraudulent Intention in the Transfers
Can Be Proved
Fraudulent intention in transfers must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and
every case must be examined in the light of surrounding circumstances. Some
circumstances that give a strong presumption that the transfer was fraudulent are:
2. The transfer was made soon after the decree ordering the payment of debt was
passes against the judgment-debtor.
3. The debtor in the case transferred whole of his property without keeping anything
for himself.
4. The consideration paid was very small when compared to the real or original value
of the property transferred.
5. Evidence was shown that there was no actual payment of consideration as given in
the sale deed.
Not only these circumstances, but there are many other circumstances in which inference
of intent to defeat or delay creditors may be drawn. So every case is depended upon its
own facts and circumstances. It is subject to a matter of fact that the transfer is bonfire or
fraudulent.
11 | P a g e
IF THERE ARE SEVERAL CREDITORS
If there are several creditors, transfer in favor of one creditor does not amount to an
intention to defeat or delay the remaining creditors. It’s upon the debtor’s discretion to
pay his debts in any order of his preference. If A has taken loan from B, C and D,
transfers certain properties to C in satisfaction of the loan taken from him. This transfer
necessarily cannot be considered as a transfer made to defeat or delay the interest of other
creditors. It was happened in the case of Mina Kumari v. Bijoy Singh9, the Privy Council
held that in the case there are two or more creditors, the debtor can give preference to any
creditor and can clear his debts in any order he chooses.
Here the question arisen before the Supreme Court was that whether this Trust Deed was
hit by Section 53 of TPA or not. In this context, Supreme Court held that:-
Observing the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that Trust was
executed to defraud the creditors, Sales Tax Department. Under the section a person must
prove two facts to challenge the transaction. Firstly, the document was executed by
settler. Secondly, the said document was executed with a clear intention to defraud or
delay the creditors. It is a matter of the fact that intention would be proved on the basis of
facts and circumstances surrounding the case. The Supreme Court also held that, it is a
well settled that a mere fact that the debtor chooses to prefer one creditor to the either
9
A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 238.
10
A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 656.
12 | P a g e
because the priority of the date or otherwise by itself cannot be misleaded that it was done
to defeat the other creditors.
In Musahur Sahu v. Hakim Lal11, Kisun Binode and Musahur Sahu were the debtor and
creditor respectively. Musahur Sahu sued the Judgment-Debtor Kisun Binode for the
recovery of his debts in December, 1900. Musahur Sahu presented a petition for attaching
the properties of the debtor as a security. This petition was filed in January, 1901, when
the original suit was during pendency. In February, 1901, Kisun Binode, the debtor gave
an affidavit that he has no intention to attach any property, accordingly the petition for
attachment was dismissed. But after the petition was dismissed, Kisun Binode sold his
properties to Hakim Lal who was another creditor of him. Then Musahur Sahu, pleaded
that the transfer to Hakim Lal were done do defeat or delay his interest and therefore it
should be held void under Section 53 of TPA and the properties should not be given to
Hakim Lal.
In this case, the appeal was dismissed by the Privy Council, and held that transfer of
property by a debtor to one creditor in preference of the other is not a fraudulent transfer
with the intent to defeat or the delay the interest of another creditor. The Lordships
observed in the case Middleton v. Collak12, the transfer if defeats or delays the creditors is
not an instrument which prefers one creditor to another but an instrument which removes
a property from the creditors to the benefit of the debtor. The debtor must not remain any
advantage or benefit for himself. He may one creditor and leave another unpaid. The
court further observed that as soon as it is found that the transfer here impeached was
made for adequate consideration in satisfaction of genuine debts, and without retaining
any benefit to the debtor, it follows that no ground for impeaching it lies in the fact that
the plaintiff who also was a creditor was a loser by a payment being made to this
preferred creditor, there is no question being bankrupt.
11
(1915) LR 43 IA 104.
12
(1876) 2 Ch D 104.
13 | P a g e
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 53(1)
Section 53(1) recognizes two exceptions. The rule that a fraudulent transfer can be
avoided by creditors is not applicable to:
In the case of Vinayak v. Kaniram13, the transferor’s intention was to convert his
immovable property into cash so as to keep it out of reach of the creditors and the
purchaser was aware of that intention of the debtor. The Court held that the purchaser was
also a party to fraud as he was aware of that fraudulent intention and sale was voidable at
the option of the creditors.
In Kapini Goundan v. Sarangapani14, a man who had taken large sum of money as loan,
transferred his whole property to the children of his first wife in consideration of her
relations allowing him to marry a second wife. In this case, the Madras court held that the
consideration was good and the transfer was not on the basis of fraudulent intention to
keep it away from creditors. It should be noted that this decision must be regarded as only
an exception and should not be regarded as a general rule.
13
A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 293.
14
(1916) Mad. W.N. 288
14 | P a g e
declared insolvent, and the transferee purchases such property from him, the transfer
cannot be avoided by creditors. In such cases, the Insolvency Courts are competent here
to decide whether the transfer was voidable under Section 53 of TPA.
Under Section 53, the Wakfnama would be voidable only at the option of the person who
was defrauded or delayed. An important fact should be noted that this section does not
violate the rule of Muslim Law.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof lies on the creditors of the transferor to show that the transfer was
made to defeat or delay the interest of the creditor. In the case of Chandradip v. Board of
Revenue15, the onus to prove the fraud lies on the person alleging it. But it may be noted
that the burden to prove the intention would largely depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
15
A.I.R. 1978 Pat 148.
15 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with “Fraudulent Transfers”. This
section has two sub sections. The first part of this section deals with the transfer made to
defeat or delay the creditors of the transferors and it is voidable at the option of such
creditor. The second part deals with the gratuitous transfers with intent to defeat or delay
the creditors. This section has some exceptions in respect of the transfers done towards
the transferee in good faith and consideration. But if the transfer is a gift towards the
stranger, then the good faith is irrelevant. The rights of the transferee created under the
law of insolvency are not affected by Section 53 even if the transferor’s intent was to
defeat or delay the creditor’s interest. The basis of the section is that one ought to be just
before being generous. This section was made to disallow a person conveying the
properties to keep it away from the creditors. In my opinion, the laws regarding
fraudulent transfers must be made stricter and such transferors or transferees who
committed fraud must be penalized for committing fraud.
16 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Dr.G.P.TRIPATHI ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, (16 th EDITION,
2009).
S.N.SHUKLA ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, (27th EDITION,
2009).
MULLA ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, (10th EDITION, 2006).
Dr. POONAM PRADHAN SAXENA, PROPERTY LAW, (2nd EDITION, 2011)
STATUTES
17 | P a g e