You are on page 1of 18

JUDICIAL APPROACH ON FRAUDULENT TRANSFER

Property Law

Submitted by:

Darshan Upadhyaya

SM0117014

5th Semester, 3rd Year

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam


Table of Contents
TABLE OF CASES ........................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF STATUTES ..................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................... 2
SCOPE AND LIMITATION ...................................................................................................... 2
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................ 3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 4
THE LAW ON FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ............................................................................... 4
INDIAN JUDICIARY ON FRADULENT TRANSFER ............................................................... 7
EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONCEPT OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFER..................................... 10
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... iv

i
TABLE OF CASES

1. Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao


2. Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao
3. Ahmad Hussain v. Kallu
4. Aligarh Muslim University v. State of Rajasthan
5. Chidambara v. Seniappa
6. Gurcharan Kaur v. Sukhwant Singh
7. Ishwar Dass Hem Raj v. Radha Mal Arjan Dass
8. Kallubandi Nanjamma v. Kethe Rangapaa
9. Kapini Goundan v. Saranganapani
10. Kishandas Ramkumar Agrawal v. Shravankumar Parmanandbhai Patel
11. Munyammal v. Thygraja
12. Musahur Sahu v. Hakim Lal
13. Nath v. Dhunbaiji
14. Natha v. Maganchand
15. Rattan Devi v. Jagadhar Mal
16. Sunder Lal v. Gursaran Lal
17. Sushilaben v. Anandilal Bapalal
18. Vinayak v. Kaniram,
19. Vinayak v. Moreshwar

LIST OF STATUTES
1. The Indian Contract Act, 1860.
2. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

ii
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

§ Section

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad

Anr. Another

Edn Edition

HC High Court

J. Justice

Ltd. Limited

Mad Madras

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union Of India

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

WB West Bengal

iii
INTRODUCTION

“The factors which constitute a fraudulent conveyance must necessarily depend upon the
circumstances of each case. But certain broad indicia have been formulated in England,
America and India. It is surprising how human nature is the same all the world over irrespective
of colour, creed and race” 1

The concept of fraudulent transfer finds its way into the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 through
Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.2 Under Section 53 the concept of fraudulent
transfer has been enumerated. Section 53 of the Act has been quoted underneath:

The basic principle enumerated by Section 53 is that every owner of property has a right to
transfer his property as he likes. But, the transfer must be made with a bona fide intention. If the
transfer is made with a fraudulent intention i.e., with the intention of defeating the interest of the
creditor or interest of any subsequent transferee then it would be hit by the provisions of Section
53 of the Act. It is a settled law that when the transfer is made with fraudulent intention, the
object of the transfer would be bad in the eyes of equity and justice though it is valid in law.
Since fraudulent transfers are otherwise valid in law, they are not void. But, because they are
made with a mala-fide intention, equity would render it voidable by the person who was so
defrauded. Equity, therefore does not allow a person to alienate his own property when such

1
Munyammal v. Thygraja [AIR 1958 Mad 580.]
2
S.53 Fraudulent transfer.—

(1) Every transfer of immoveable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be
voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed. Nothing in this sub-section shall impair the rights of a
transferee in good faith and for consideration. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect any law for the time being in
force relating to insolvency. A suit instituted by a creditor (which term includes a decree-holder whether he has or
has not applied for execution of his decree) to avoid a transfer on the ground that it has been made with intent to
defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be instituted on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all the creditors.

(2) Every transfer of immoveable property made without consideration with intent to defraud a subsequent
transferee shall be voidable at the option of such transferee. For the purposes of this sub-section, no transfer made
without consideration shall be deemed to have been made with intent to defraud by reason only that a subsequent
transfer for consideration was made.

1
alienations tend to delay or defeat the interest of his creditor or any subsequent transferee. This
principle of equity has been incorporated in Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.3

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this project is to provide a comprehensive study and analysis of the concept of
Fraudulent Transfer under the Property Law. The project aims at explaining and analyzing the
relevant provisions of Fraudulent Transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The project
also aims at understanding the essential elements constituting the concept of Fraudulent Transfer
along with its different kinds. It also encapsulates various interpretations added to the core
concept by way of judicial pronouncements.

The objectives of the research paper are:

1. To study the concept of Fraudulent Transfer under the Transfer of Property law.
2. To understand the requisites and exceptions to the concept of Fraudulent Transfer.
3. To analyze the judicial approach and interpretations provided to the concept of
Fraudulent Transfer.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The scope of this project is confined to the study of the concept of Fraudulent Transfer under the
Property Law under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which includes discussion
on the fundamentals of a transaction of Fraudulent Transfer. Areas of focus and concentration
have been the laws governing the transfer of property by way of Fraudulent Transfer and
development in case of such laws of transfer through judicial pronouncements.

The limitation of this research is the lack of discussion on the concept of Fraudulent Transfer in
general and lack of existing literature on the topic.

3
DR. R.K. SINHA, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT (Central Law Agency, Nineteenth edn., 2018)

2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Saxena4 in his book very clearly encompasses the entire concept of Fraudulent Transfer which is
governed by the Transfer of Property, Act, 1882. It also lays down vivid description of all the
forms of Fraudulent Transfer by incorporating its essence and significant fundamentals. The
chapter on Fraudulent Transfer has also explained the relevance of the topic with the help of
ample illustrations and a thorough analysis of cases which helps in grasping the concept in a
wholesome manner.

Tiwary, 5 in his book discussed the fundamentals of Fraudulent Transfer. The concept of
Fraudulent Transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has also been well
illustrated by way of case analysis and examples which brings forth the developments in law as
related to the concept. The author has also taken into consideration the various judicial
pronouncements in his book while discussing the concept of Fraudulent Transfers.

Sinha6 in his book entails important description on the concept of Fraudulent Transfer including
the basic essentials that govern or qualify a Fraudulent Transfer. The book also analyses
Fraudulent Transfer by way of various judicial interpretations. It also incorporates the various
interpretations made to the law with respect to the validity of Fraudulent Transfer. The author
however fails to draw attention towards the law that is applicable in the United States with
regards to Fraudulent Transfer as this aspect has not been discussed in the book.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The researcher has framed the following research questions:

1. What is the concept of Fraudulent Transfer?


2. What are the requisites and exceptions to the concept of Fraudulent Transfer?
3. What has been the judicial approach of the Courts on Fraudulent Transfer?

4
DR. POONAM PRADHAN SAXENA, PROPERTY LAW (Lexis Nexis Publication, Second edn., 2011
5
DR. H.N. TIWARI, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT (Allahabad Law Agency, Sixth edn., 2014).
6
DR. R.K. SINHA, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT (Central Law Agency, Nineteenth edn., 2018

3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology which is adopted for the present work is doctrinal in nature that is further
descriptive, analytical and comparative. However, the majority of the research project is
descriptive in nature. The researcher mainly depended on the secondary sources of data. Various
books, articles and reports have been referred to along with reference to online databases like
Supreme Court Cases (SCC), HeinOnline, J-Stor, etc. A uniform citation style, i.e. Bluebook
citation (20th edn.) has been used in the project.

CHAPTER 1
THE LAW ON FRAUDULENT TRANSFER
Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended by the Act of 1929,
acknowledgedly follows closely the language of Sections 172 and 173 of the English Law of
Property Act, 1925.

A creditor holding a claim against a debtor typically holds the right, subject to the debtor's
default, to obtain a judgment against the debtor, liquidate the debtor's assets, and apply the
proceeds against his claim. If the debtor's assets are insufficient to satisfy the creditor's claim, the
creditor is usually, but not always, out of luck. Under limited circumstances, a creditor can reach
property the debtor transferred to a third party and apply the value of such property to satisfy his
claim. The creditor can undo the transfer and obtain the property or its value from the transferee
as though the debtor had never transferred it.7 The circumstances under which creditors can undo
or "avoid" a transfer of the debtor's property, deprive the transferee of the value of the property,
and apply such value to satisfy their claims are the subject of fraudulent transfer law.

Which attributes of these two classes of transfers distinguish them from the universe of all
investments the debtor may make remains something of a mystery. Commentators on fraudulent
transfer law explain that these actually or constructively fraudulent transfers unjustly deprive
creditors of assets that otherwise would be available to satisfy their claim and thus ought to be
avoidable.8 Thus, a transfer ought to be avoidable whenever it is actually or constructively

7
Marie T. Reilly, The Latent Efficiency of Fraudulent Transfer Law, 57 La. L. Rev. 1213 (1997).
8
Id.

4
fraudulent, and a transfer is actually or constructively fraudulent because it ought to be
avoidable.

There are two important characteristics of fraudulent transfers. These two conditions need to be
fulfilled before we can term the transfer as Fraudulent. The first condition is that there needs to
be the transfer of immovable property. The Section clearly demarcates between the type of
property and categorically states that the section will only be attracted if the property being
transferred is immovable property. Secondly the transfer needs to be necessarily “fraudulent”.
Here it is the intent of the transferor that is in prime contention. It is absolutely necessary that
there must be a mala fide intention on part of the transferor and therefore he is transferring the
property in order to defraud his creditors or simply delay them. Only under the aforementioned
two circumstances and their fulfillment will Section 53 get attracted and then the property would
be voidable by the creditor or a group of creditors whose interest have been either defeated or
delayed.

Section 53 of the Act also guarantees the right to avoid suing against a fraudulent transaction.
This right is exclusively reserved for the creditors. A bare reading of Section 53 will lead us to
the conclusion that the creditor has the choice of not choosing to render the fraudulent transfer as
void as well. It was observed in Kallubandi Nanjamma v. Kethe Rangapaa 9 that it is a well
settled law that the creditor having a right to avoid the transfer under Section 53 can do so by any
act which shows clearly and unambiguously an intention to avoid it.

Further, the burden of proof lies on the alleging party to establish that the transfer was made with
a intent to defraud or delay the interests of the creditor. Fraud like any charge of a criminal
offence, whether made in civil or criminal litigation, must be established beyond reasonable
doubt. A finding as to the fraud cannot be based on suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, the
circumstantial evidence must be such so as to create no doubt in the mind.10 The same was held
in Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao 11 ,Kishandas Ramkumar Agrawal v. Shravankumar
Parmanandbhai Patel 12 and as recently in Gurcharan Kaur v. Sukhwant Singh13

9
1953 I MLJ 737 at p.739.
10
Dr Sir Hari Singh Gour, Commentary on the Transfer of Property Act, 599 (Delhi law house, 13th Ed., 2014)
11
AIR 1963 SC 1150.
12
1975 M.P.L.J. 556 at p. 560.

5
Musahur Sahu v. Hakim Lal 14

A very interesting question of law arises in the concept of the preference that is to be made in
payment of the incurred debt to the creditors as will be discussed here by studying the
aforementioned judgment. It has now been made clear that any fraudulent transfer with a
malafide intention on the part of the transferor would be voidable at the behest of the creditor.
However, in a circumstance where a debtor has incurred loans from a number of creditors the
question that arises is, what would be the order in which he would settle all these debts by virtue
of not paying the debt of one of the creditor at the behest of the other; would such a transfer be
termed as fraudulent transfer. In lieu of this query, let us proceed to the landmark judgment of
Musahur Sahu v. Hakim Shah15 where the Court categorically dealt with the same

The aforementioned judgment of the Calcutta High Court is a landmark judgment when it comes
to the concept of Fraudulent Transfer. Kisun Binode was debtor in the instant matter and
Musahur Sahu was the creditor. In the month of January in the year 1901, the creditor sued the
Kisun Binode in order to recover his debts.

While the suit was pending before the Court, the creditor presented a petition before the Court
seeking to attach the properties of the debtor by way of security. In pursuance to the
aforementioned petition the debtor Mr Kisun Binode, gave an affidavit clearly signifying and
stating that he did not intend to transfer any of his properties following which the petition filed
for attachment was dismissed.

However, irrespective of his presenting the affidavit and ensuring the Court and the creditor that
he would not sell his properties, the debtor sold his properties to Hakim Lal who happened to be
one of another creditor of the debtor. Aggrieved by this act of the debtor, the creditor approached
the Court with the contention that the transfer of property from Kisun Binode to Hakim Shah had
been made with an intent to defeat his interests, and therefore would be void under the provisions

13
AIR 2013 P&H 42.
14
(1915) 43 Cal. 521 .
15
Id.

6
of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He further contended that the property
should not therefore be given to Hakim Lal.

The Court rejected the contentions of the creditor and held that the transfer of property by a
debtor to one creditor in preference of the other is not a fraudulent transfer with intent to defeat
or delay the interest of another creditor and therefore dismissed the appeal.16

CHAPTER 2

INDIAN JUDICIARY ON FRADULENT TRANSFER


Having dealt with and observed the two essential requisites of fraudulent transfers it is now
important to also set aside certain legal concepts and deal with them to find out whether they
would be governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with respect to fraudulent
transfers. We shall study these concepts through judgments of various Courts for a better
understanding of the same. This shall also help us achieve the objective of studying the judicial
approach towards fraudulent transfer.

Abdool Hye v. Mir Mohammed

As has been mentioned above, the concept of Fraudulent transfer under Section 53 would only
govern immovable property. However, the aforementioned case provides for an exception to this
general rule. In the instant judgment the Privy Council applied the principle laid down in the
Section to fraudulent transfer of movable property citing grounds of equity, justice and good
conscience. It is therefore worth noting that the principle of Section 53 is primarily that of the
principle of equity and therefore under the triangle of justice, equity and good conscience, the
provisions of Section 53 can also apply to movable property.

Sunder Lal v. Gursaran Lal 17

In the aforementioned judgment the issue before the Court was that whether the concept of
relinquishment would be governed by Section 53 of the Act. In the instant matter an attempt had
been made by one of the co-parcenors to defeat the intention of his creditor by relinquishing his
share in favour of another co-parcenor

16
RK Sinha, The Transfer of Property Act, 212, (Central Law Agency, 19th Edn, 2018).
17
AIR 1938 Oudh 65.

7
The Court held that relinquishment is not transfer of property for the purpose of Section 5 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and therefore in the instant case the relinquishment, even if done
with a fraudulent intention, fails to attract Section 53 of the Act.

Nath v. Dhunbaiji18 and Chidambara v. Seniappa19

In the aforementioned cases the issue for determination before the Courts was that whether
Section 53 would be applicable to the concept of surrender. Further, the Court had to decide
whether surrender by a life estate holder would be transfer for the purpose of attracting Section
53 of the Act.

The Courts held in both of the aforementioned judgments that Section 53 of the Act would not be
governing the concept of surrender. However, with regards to the second contention the Court
held that the provisions of Section 53 would be attracted if there is a surrender by a life estate
holder. Thus the Courts created an exception to the general rule that Section 53 would not govern
surrender in the aforementioned cases.

Ishwar Dass Hem Raj v. Radha Mal Arjan Dass 20

The issue for determination before the Punjab High Court was whether Section 53 of the Act
would apply to cases where the dissolution of a partnership has been done to delay the interests
of the creditor. The Court held that firstly dissolution of partnership would not be regarded as
transfer for the purpose of Section 5 of the Act.

Secondly, the Court held that since the dissolution of partnership would not be regarded as a
valid transfer in the first case, it would be immaterial to decide on whether a dissolution done
with the intention of delaying or defrauding the creditor would be hit by Section 53 of the Act.
Thus the privilege under Section 53 was denied to the creditor in the instant case.

Ahmad Hussain v. Kallu 21

18
(1889) 23 Bom. 1;
19
AIR 1960 Punj 417
20
AIR 1960 Punj 417
21
AIR 1929 All. 277

8
Ahmad Hussain v. Kallu 22is a very important judgment when it comes to understanding the
concept of Fraudulent Transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. The case governs the
interplay between Section 53 and the concept of Wakf under Mohammedan Law. A wakf is the
permanent dedication of land made to the almighty god by virtue of which the property right of
the Waqif is extinguished and is transferred to the almighty god. Two very important
characteristics of a Waqf are that it is irrevocable and is done in perpetuity. Furthermore it was
held by the Rajasthan High Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Syed Mohammad Sayeed
Chishty23 by Justice RS Chauhan speaking on behalf of the bench held that “Once a Waqf,
always a Waqf ”. Therefore in the light of these existing legal arguments it is crucial to study
whether in cases where the Waqif declares the property as a Waqf property, merely with the
intention to make the property beyond the reach of the creditor, would such an Act be hit by
Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A contention that would be raised against the
applicability of Section 53 on Waqf properties is the element of permanence that is attributed
with Waqf properties and that it is irrevocable.

However, in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ahmad Hussain v. Kallu24 it was held
that a deed of Waqf executed with the object of making the property inalienable and beyond the
reach of creditor was held to be a transfer that would be hit by Section 53 of the Act and would
be a fraudulent transfer. The contention therefore with regards to the inapplicability of Section
53 on Waqf properties can be countered by the argument that the idea of permanence would not
come in at all, since the very process of declaring the property as a Waqf property would be set
aside and would be fraudulent transfer for the purpose of Section 53 of the Act.

Vinayak v. Moreshwar25

This sub section seeks to study the application of Fraudulent Transfer on the concepts of
Partition and Family settlements. It is a settled law that neither partition nor family settlement
would be eligible as transfers for the purpose Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act.
However, the law is somewhat different when it comes to the application of the concept on
fraudulent transfers on partition and family settlements.

22
Id.
23
(2007) 3 RLW 2394.
24
AIR 1929 All. 277.
25
AIR 1944 Nag 44.

9
The judgments of various High Courts in Vinayak v. Moreshwar26 , Rattan Devi v. Jagadhar Mal
27
and in Sushilaben v. Anandilal Bapalal28 deal with the application of fraudulent transfers on
family partitions. It is today a settled law that if the object of partition is merely to defraud the
creditors, it may be regarded as a fraudulent transfer under this section. Therefore, it can be seen
that partitions made with a mala fide intention can be set aside as fraudulent transfers, even
though partitions are not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

CHAPTER 3

EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONCEPT OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFER


After having looked into the working of Section 53 in general and also with respect to various
legal concepts it is also pertinent for us to examine the exceptions to the general rule of
fraudulent transfer. These two exceptions have been enumerated in the Section itself.

The first exception is with regards to a transferee who takes property in good-faith for
consideration. The Second exception is in regards to any rights created under the law of
insolvency. We shall study both these exceptions in detail.

a) Transferee in good faith for consideration

A bare reading of the Section opens up a very valid yet noteworthy doubt. In dealing with the
right of the creditor to prevent a fraudulent transfer and the various defences the transferor can
argue, it would be very unjust of the Section to not talk about a transferee who has received the
property from the transferor in good faith and by paying consideration. Therefore it is crucial to
understand that the parties involved and dealt with under Section 53 are not only the creditor and
the transferor, but the Section also takes into consideration the presence of the transferee.

Thus, Section 53 ensures that in cases where the transferee has received the property in good
faith and by providing consideration, then the creditors cannot stop the transfer from taking place
even if they are successful in bringing it to the notice of the Court that the transfer is a fraudulent
transfer. This principle has also been derived from the broad principle of equity.

26
AIR 1944 Nag. 44.
27
AIR 1956 Punj. 46
28
AIR 1983 Guj. 126.

10
The exception to this general rule however comes with its own set of requisites. For the
application of this exception to the general rule there are two essential conditions which have to
be fulfilled. Firstly, the transferee must have been a party to the transfer in good faith and
therefore was not aware about the intention of the transferor and was oblivious to it. If it can be
proved that the transferee was already aware of the intention of the transferor beforehand and
being aware of the transferor’s intention agreed to acquire the property then the exception will
fail to apply as the transferee would not have acted in good faith. Therefore for a transferee to
claim the privilege under Section 53, he must have necessarily acquired the property in good
faith and had no clue about the mala-fide intention of the transferor.

This principle has been reiterated in a number of cases with the prominent ones being Vinayak v.
Kaniram,29 Natha v. Maganchand30, Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao31 . These cases dealt with
matters where the transferor had converted his immovable property into cash so as to keep his
property out of the reach of the creditors and where the transferee was aware of this intention of
the transferor. The Court held that the exception to Section 53 would not apply as the transferee
had not acted in good faith.

The second requisite is that the transferee must have paid pecuniary consideration for the
transfer. If the transferee had not yet paid any consideration to the transferor in lieu of the
transaction then he would not be entitled to this benefit under Section 53 of the Act. The concept
also seems to be well founded on ground of logic as in matters where the transferee has not paid
the consideration; in no circumstance would he be harmed if the transfer were to be declared as
fraudulent. Therefore the section mandates that there needs to be present the payment of a valid
consideration on the part of the transferee.

Now another very crucial question which arises is what can be a valid consideration for the
purpose of this section. The answer lies in the definition of consideration as enshrined under the
Indian Contract Act, 1860. The Indian Contract Act deals with consideration at length and so do
most of the cases on the Indian Contract Act, 1860. Therefore the definition of consideration
under the Contract Act is similar to that of the consideration being dealt with under this section.

29
AIR 1926 Nag 293.
30
(1903) 27 Bom. 322.
31
AIR 1963 SC 1150.

11
Further, we can refer to certain judgments to be able to decide what can be constituted as
consideration and what cannot be constituted as consideration for the purpose of Section 53.

The decision of the Madras High Court in Kapini Goundan v. Saranganapani 32 is very
interesting in that regard. In the aforementioned matter, the debtor had taken a large amount of
money as loan from the creditor and had then transferred all of his property to the children of his
first wife. The consideration it was argued by the debtor was his first wife agreeing to him
marrying another woman for his second marriage. The Court held that the consideration was
valid and therefore saved under the exception to Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.

32
(1916) Mad. WN 288.

12
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
The concept of Fraudulent Transfer has come a long way to ensure that the rights of the creditor
are protected at all costs. The various Courts starting from the Privy Council benches to the High
Courts in colonial as well as in independent India have strived through their judgments to lay a
strong foundation of the concept of Fraudulent Transfer by their judgments in which they have
paid due regard to the rights of both the creditor as well as the transferee. It is true that credit
should also be given to the legislature of the time which drafted the Section and who ensured that
the rights of a transferee who has paid consideration in good faith is protected. The transferee is
thus protected under the exceptions to the general rule of fraudulent transfer.

However, credit should also be given to the Judiciary in ensuring that they have also ensured that
a debt ridden debtor is not harassed by a creditor by using Section 53 as a weapon of harassment.
The very concept of Preferential Creditor has been dealt in this paper through the Musahur Sahu
case33 where the Court held that no preference is to be given to any creditor while paying off
debts thus ensuring that the debtor is not harassed. Further-more, the judiciary has also held
certain considerations to be valid with respect to the transfer of property between a transferor and
the transferee and therefore also protected both the transferor and the transferee’s rights. The
judiciary has also very categorically laid down the law with regards to fraudulent transfers and
matters concerning partition, family settlement, partnership etc. which has made the law much
more clear and unambiguous.

Lastly, the researcher believes that this paper would add to the existing literature on Fraudulent
Transfer as very little has been written on the topic when it comes to analyzing the Judicial
approach or even on Fraudulent Transfers in general.

33
(1915) 43 Cal. 521.

13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(i) List of Books:
DR. POONAM PRADHAN SAXENA, PROPERTY LAW 317 (Lexis Nexis Publication, Second
edn., 2011).
DR. H.N. TIWARI, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 276 (Allahabad Law Agency, Sixth edn.,
2014).
DR. R.K. SINHA, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT (Central Law Agency, Nineteenth edn.,
2018).
G.C.V. SUBHA RAO, LAW OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY (EASEMENT, TRUST AND WILLS) (Alt
Publications, Seventh edn., 2012).

(ii) List of Articles and Journals:

HERBERT BROOM, Selection of Legal Maxims Classified and Illustrated, (8th American,
from the 5th London edn.) (8).

Marie T. Reilly, The Latent Efficiency of Fraudulent Transfer Law, 57 La. L. Rev. 1213
(1997).
THOMAS RALEIGH, Outline of the Law of Property, (1890).
G.C. CHESHIRE, Editor. Stephen’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. (19).

(iii) List of Online Databases:

SCC Online.
Manupatra.
HeinOnline.
LexisNexis.

iv

You might also like