JAGANNATHversusSHRI YUGAL NARAIN PUROHIT, ADV. AND ORS.

                               JAGANNATH                                      A
                                       v
         SHRI YUGAL NARAIN PUROHIT, ADV. AND ORS.

                            DECEMBER 19,1996

            (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                            B

       Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 : Section 53.

       Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136.

      AppeaHnterference with concurrent findings of fact-Property pur-
                                                                              c
chased by respondent-Application filed for declaration that trans/er infavour
of respondent was fraudulent one-Finding recorded by Trial Court that sale
was bona fide made for valuable consideration-Finding upheld by a Single
Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court-Held, finding of fact was
based on appreciation of evidence-There was no substantial question of law D
of public importance-Therefore interference by Supreme Court was not
warranted.

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appe11l No. 2330 of
1986
                                                                              E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.83 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 18 of 1981.

       B.D. Sharma· for the Appellant.

       R.K. Maheshwari for the Respondents.                                   F

       The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, made on November 15, 1983 in Special       G
Appeal No. 18/81. The respondent had purchased the property from
Bhadarmal on May 17, 1958. Subsequently, the vender was declared insol-
vent. Therefore, when the proceedings were sought to be taken in respect
of those properties, the appellant filed an application to declare the
transfer of the lands made in favour of the respondent under Section 53 of
the Provincial Insolvency Act to be a fraudulent one. All the courts have     H
                                    867
                                      •
    868                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP.10 S.C.R.

A concurrently found, as a fact, that the sale transaction under Ex:.-Al is a
    bona fide sale for valuable consideration executed in good faith and,
    therefore, the sale was not executed to defraud the creditors.

        Shri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that
  the respondent is no other than a practicing advocate. He having obtained
B the sale deed, could not get physical possession of the property. Had he
  taken the physical possession, the things would have been different. In an
  appeal filed by the insolvent himself, the High Court had stayed delivery
  of the possession subject to payment of rent. The finding that the posses-
  sion was taken, thereby, is vitiated by error of law. These facts have not
C been properly considered by the courts below in reaching that conclusion.
  We find no force in the contention.

        Admittedly, Ex:. A-1, sale-deed makes a clear recital that the posses-
  sion of the property sold thereunder was delivered to the vendee-respon-
  dent. The learned single Judge of the High Court after elaborate
D consideration of the evidence recorded thus :
                 "There is recital in the sale-deed (Ex. Al) that the possession
             of the apartments which were in possession of the transferor, have
             been delivered to the transferee. Relying on the testimony of D.W.1
             Yugalnarain, which supports the recital made in the sale- deed
E            (Ex:. Al), I hold that possession as mentioned in the sale- deed
             (Ex. Al) in pursuance of it was delivered to the transferees. The
             inference that can safely be drawn from the evidence and broad
             facts emerging therefrom is that the Official Receiver has not
             succeeded in establishing want of good faith on the part of respon-
             dent No. 1. As the Official Receiver has failed to discharge the
F            burden which lay on him, I agree with the learned District judge
             when he found that issue No. 1 has not been proved. It cannot be
             said that the sale-deed (Ex:. Al) was not for valuable consideration
             and in good faith. I hold that the Official Receiver is not entitled
             to avoid the voluntary transfer of sale made by Bhadarmal in favour
             of Yuagalnarin. The sale, evidenced by Ex. Al, is not voidable
G            against the Official Receiver and it cannot be annulled."

        This is a finding based on appreciation of evidence recorded by the
  learned single judge. The division Bench, therefore, was right in its con-        [
  clusion that "there is a concurrent finding of fact that the impugned
H transaction is a real one and with consideration". The trial Court held that
               JAGANNATH v. YU GAL NARAJN PUROHIT                       869

  the sale was made for valuable consideration and in good faith. This         A
  finding was upheld by the learned single judge. In this view, it being a
  finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence, we do not find any
  substantial question of law of public importance warranting interference.
  Even the contention raised by the learned counsel was in fact considered
. by the learned single judge and also the trial court. The direction to the   B
  vender to pay rent would be in recognition of the title of the respondent
  as landlord and vender as tenant in occupation. Though a different con-
  clusion could be reached, but that would not be a ground for this Court to
  interfere under Article 136.

       The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

 T.N.A.                                                  Appeal dismissed.