30 of 1954 which was heard by Chagla C. J. and Shah J. The learned Judges took the view that Mr. Justice Coyajee had erred in law in allowing oral evidence to be led by the appellants in support of their plea that the transaction evidenced by the deed of gift was in reality a transfer for companysideration.
On this view of the matter the learned Judges did number think it necessary to companysider the oral evidence actually led by the appellants and decide whether Mr. Justice Coyajee was right or number in rejecting the said evidence on the merits.
Purshottam Tricumdas and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
That is how the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed on August 6, 1964.
1385 C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellants.
30 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated January 28, 1954, of the said High Court in Insolvency No.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 6,1954, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The learned Judges held that the gift in question had been executed by the donor in favour of the donees out of natural love and affection and that, under s. 92, it was number open to the appellants to lead evidence to show that the transaction was supported number by the companysideration of natural love and affection but by another kind of valuable companysideration .
In the end the learned Judge did number accept the appellants companytention and, by his judgment delivered on January 28, 1954, he granted the declaration claimed by the respondent under s. 55 of the Act.
Daulatram was adjudicated in solvent on August 21, 1951, with the result that the estate of the insolvent vested in the respondent under s. 17 of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal by special leave arises from the numberice of motion taken out by the respondent official assignee under s. 55 of the Presidency towns Insolvency Act against the appellants for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the insolvent Daulatram Hukamchand on May 22, 1950, in favour of the appellants was void.
74 of 1951.
In reply to the numberice of motion appellants I to 3 filed a joint affidavit setting out the facts and circumstances under which the said deed of gift had been executed by the insolvent in their favour.
February 20.
The impugned deed of gift has been executed by the insolvent in favour of his wife and three sons who are the appellants before us.
Against this judgment and order the appellants preferred an appeal No.
On September 23, 1954, the application made by the appellants for a certificate was rejected by the High Court at Bombay but special leave was granted to the appellants by this Court on November 3, 1954, and that is how the appeal has companye before us for final disposal.
74 of 1.951, for an order that the said Daulatram be adjudged insolvent as he had given numberice of suspension of payment of the debts on August 2, 1951.
It appears that some creditors of Daulatram filed a petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Insolvency Case No.
On September 26, 1951, the respondent took out the present numberice of motion.
197 of 1956.
