Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Rangammal vs Venkatachari on 16 March, 1896
Equivalent citations: (1897) ILR 20 Mad 323
Bench: A J Collins, Benson


JUDGMENT

1. We have no doubt but that the finding of the Court below on both the issues raised before it is correct, and that the legal inferences drawn therefrom are also correct. It is urged in appeal that the appellant was materially prejudiced by the absence of an issue as to whether or not the fraud of the appellant’s late husband was accomplished in a substantial manner. We cannot admit this plea; It was the appellant’s case that her late husband’s acts were without consideration and were done with a view to defraud creditors. The evidence of the appellant’s own first, third and fifth witnesses shows that he Was successful, and induced his creditors thereby to give up their claims to large sums of money. It seems to us to be clear that the deceased could not, if now alive, come into Court and claim to have his own fraudulent acts set aside. But it is argued that the appellant, as his widow, is in a better position, and may claim relief against the consequences of her late husband’s fraudulent transfers. We are unable to admit that in the present case the widow is in a better position than her husband would be, if alive. It is argued that the widow has a right to maintenance out of her husband’s property, and has, therefore, an interest therein which ipso facto gives her a right to impeach its alienation, independently of the interest which she takes as widow and representative of the late owner. The case of Ramanadan v. Rangammal I.L.R. 12 Mad. 260 is relied on in support of this contention. In regard to this plea, we think it enough to observe that there is no question of maintenance in the present case. We offer no opinion as to whether a widow might successfully maintain a claim for maintenance out of property alienated by her husband without consideration and fraudulently if she herself was no party to the fraud, but that is not the present case. Here she claims to set aside fraudulent transactions by which her husband profited and by which she, as his representative, has also presumably benefited. This the Courts will not assist her to accomplish. The learned Judge has gone fully into the authorities on this question and we entirely concur in the conclusions at which be has arrived. We confirm the decree of the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.187 seconds.