Ramaswami Chettiar by his Agent Natesa Pillai vs Kathamuthu Thevar and Another

Devadoss, J.—The question before-the lower Court was whether the alleged partition among the members of a joint Hindu family was in fraud of creditors. The learned Judge observes in para, 2 of his judgment that a partition is not a-transfer within the meaning of the Act. This is opposed to the decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to one decision reported as Rasa Goundan v. Arunachella Goundan 72 Ind. Cas. 978: (1923) M.W.N. 320: A.I.R 1923 Mad. 577 where it was held that "A partition among the members of adjoint Hindu family is a transfer to which the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act would be applicable." The learned Judge''s observations on the question of fact are evidently coloured by his view of the law and I, therefore, set aside his judgment and direct the District Judge to restore the appeal to file and dispose of it according to law. Costs of this appeal will abide the result. The appellant will be entitled to a refund of the Court-fee.