Maclean, C.J.@mdashThis case does not to my mind present any real difficulty. The facts, as found by Mr. Justice Sale, are not disputed on this appeal, and it is unnecessary for me to recapitulate them. It would hardly have been necessary for me to have said anything on this appeal, had it not been for a point taken by Mr. Hill which was not taken in the Court of first instance. His suggestion was that the case did not fall either within sec. 7 or sec. 24 of the Insolvent Act. As regards sec. 7. I do not understand that anybody had ever suggested that it did not fall within that section and the argument that the benefit under the contract in question did not vest in the Official Assignee under sec. 7 is an argument which cannot property prevail. The Plaintiff himself has shown that it was an actionable claim within the meaning of sec. of the Transfer of Property Act by the very fact of the assignment in question and the footing that there was property under the contract, which the assignor could pass to the assignee and if it passed from the assignor to the assignee, it would pass from the latter to the Official Assignee, on the assignees insolvency. That this was a beneficial contract is further shown by the fact that by reason of the rise in the market a profit of Rs. 3,000 was receivable under it the benefit of which would have passed to the creditors of the assignor upon his insolvency. That disposes of Mr. Hill''s argument. If we get rid of that point, what remains? Sec. 6, sub-sec, (h) of the Transfer of Property Act provides that "no transfer can be made for an unlawful object or consideration within the meaning of sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872." That takes us to sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act, which enacts that " the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful "-I pass over some intermediate matters-" unless it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent." I think the transfer in question would come within either of those provisos. The object, on the facts found, was clearly fraudulent may the whole transaction appears to be so. When one has said this, one has said all that is necessary to hold that the judgment of the Court of first instance is right and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Harington, J.
I agree.
Geidt, J.
I also agree.
