HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0600 and id is 1 raw text is: VI MOORE IND. APP., 510 BEBEE TOKAI SHEROB V. BEGLAR [1856]
BEBEE TOKAI SHEROB,-Appellant; DAVID MULLICK FUREEDOON BEGLAR
and GABRIEL AVIETIE TER STEPHANOOS,-Respandents * [July 15 and
16, 1856].
On appeal from the Sudder Dewa-wnay Adawlut at Calcutta..
A., by four deeds, conveyed certain real estates near Dacca in Benamee, for S.,
his mistress, by virtue of which she took possession. By a Will made sub-
quent to the date of the conveyances, A. appointed G., his illegimate son,
executor, and after satisfying certain charges thereby created, which would
exhaust his whole estate, gave G. a life estate in the residue. A. was involved
and in pecuniary difficulties, and an action was brought against him in the
Supreme Court at Calcutta by some of his creditors, which action was pending
at the. time of his death, and was revived against G. as A.'s heir, and judg-
ment obtained against G. without reference to his character as executor of
A. Under an execution sale in satisfaction of this judgment, the Sheriff
sold the right, title, and interest of G. to V. (whose interest afterwards
became vested in B.) for a nominal sum. Ejectment by B. founded on the
title under the Sheriff's Bill of sale, against S. and G. to recover possession
of the real estate in S.'s possession, impeaching the conveyances made to her
by A. as void as against A.'s creditors. The Court in India decreed possession
to B. on the ground of the conveyances being fraudulent. Decree of the
Sudder Court reversed by the Judicial Committee by reason,-
First, that the title of S. to the lands under the conveyances was established.
Second, that in the circumstances of G. having only an uncertain right in
unascertained property, it was not such an interest as could be seized by the
Sheriff under a writ of execution, and that the Bill of sale was void.
This suit (see case reported, nom Bibi Ta-koi Sheraab v. Mitkeethum Va'rdoon,
7 Sud. Dew. Adaw. Rep. 547) was instituted by the Respondent, Beglar, for possession
of four distinct estates consist-[511]-ing of lands and houses in the District of Dacca,
with mesne profits, in the possession of the Appellant, claiming as purchaser under
four deeds of conveyance from one Avietie Ter Stephanoos, an Armenian merchant
of Dacca, and also as mortgagee under a foreclosure. The principal question was,
whether these conveyances were bona fide, and for valuable consideration, or
collusive and fraudulent as against Avietie's creditors. The Respondent Beglar's
title was a purchaser under a Sheriff's Bill of sale in execution of a judgment of the
Supreme Court at Calcutta.
The facts of the case are fully stated in the judgment.
Mr. Wigram, Q.C., and Mr. Leith, for the Appellant, contended that the title of
the Appellant as a bona fide purchaser for a good consideration to the four parcels
of land, was fully established; and that, so far as related to the particular parcel
included in the foreclosure, the decree of the Zillah Court, of the 7th of April, 1843,
was a bar to this suit. That this being, in effect, an. action of ejectment, the oVs
of proof lay upon the Plaintiff to prove that a legal title ever became vested in
Gabriel Avietie Ter Stephanoos, to these[512]four parcels; so as to have been capable
of being seized by the Sheriff; but that the Plaintiff had entirely failed to prove that
the Respondent, Gabriel Avietie Ter Stephanoos, had any right, title, and interest
in these parcels; or that any right, title, or interest passed to him under the Sheriff's
Bills of sale, which would entitle the Plaintiff to possession. That the Will of Avietie
had not been proved; but even if it had, it could not affect the real estate of Avietie.
Neither was it shown that any interest of Avietie became vested in Gabriel Avietie
Ter Stephanoos under such Will, other than as executor: the estates were not men-
tioned, and would not, therefore, pass. That the estates were, in fact, vested in the
Appellant under the conveyances. The charges created by Avietie would exhaust
* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. T. Pemberton
Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right Hon. Sir John Dodson.
Assessor,-The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0600&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)