Hurrosoondery Dabee of the second part, Nemy-
churn Bonnerjee and Ramessur Chowdry as Trustees
of the third part. It recited that Obhoychurn Bon-
nerjee was entitled, in the event of his surviving his
Mother, to one clear moiety of the residuary estate of
Doorgachurn Chuckerbutty; that he was indebted
to Hurrosoondery Dabee in Rs. 87,500, for advances.
made out of that residuary estate, which she was
liable to make good; that he had been applied to for
payment; that he was unable to pay, but had agreed
to execute the Deed as security; and it was thereby
witnessed that he sold and conveyed to the parties of
the third part "All that the undivided moiety, or
share, right, title, and interest, whatever the same
may be, of him, the said Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, of
and in the several messuages, lands, tenements, and
hereditaments following, being respectively formed of
the said residuary estate of the said Doorgachurn
Chuckerbutty, deceased, that is to say:" And then
followed the description of the property "to have
and to hold the same respectively (subject to and
after the determination of the life interest of the said
Sreemutty Hurrosoondery Dabee therein respectively)
unto and to the use of them (the parties of the third
part) and the survivor of them, his heirs, and
assigns for ever," upon
upon the trusts thereinafter
declared. A similar clause, assigning his moiety of
the personalty, then followed, and the trusts declared
were as follows, viz. :-Out of the moiety of the
personalty, or, if the same should be insufficient, out
of the rents and profits of the moiety of the realty,
or, if necessary, by sale thereof, to pay to the resi-
duary estate the sum of Rs. 87,500, and interest
at six per cent. and costs, and after full payment to

1867.

TAREENY CHURN BONNERJEE

V.

MAITLAND.

1867.

TAREENY

CHURN BONNERJEE

v.

MAITLAND.

make over what remained of such moiety to Obhoychurn Bonnerjee to his own use. The Deed con

tained the usual covenants for title and further assurance, power to appoint new Trustees, and a power of Attorney from Obhoychurn Bonnerjee to the Trustees.

Amongst other firms with whom Obhoychurn Bonnerjee had transactions was the firm of Mackillop, Stewart, & Co., which transactions went on from the year 1836. On the 23rd of August, 1845, that firm brought an action against Obhoychurn Bonnerjee to recover Rs. 50,816 and interest; and he having failed to appear to the action, a Writ of sequestration was issued, under which the Sheriff of Calcutta seized the right, title, and interest of Obhoychurn Bonnerjee in certain portions of the property left by Doorgachurn Chuckerbutty, being six parcels out of the twelve parcels mentioned in the Deed, and the firm of Mackillop, Stewart, & Co. contended that Obhoychurn Bonnerjee had, in fact, obtained a moiety of Hurrosoondery Dabee's life interest in the property so seized.

Upon this Hurroso ondery Dabee brought an action of trespass against the Sheriff, and while it was pending Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, on the 4th of February, 1846, was declared an Insolvent, and Mr. O'Dowda was appointed his Assignee by the Insolvent Court of Calcutta; and on the 19th of February, 1846, Obhoychurn Bonnerjee filed his schedule in the Insolvent Court, in which he admitted the debt of Rs. 87,500 as due upon the aforesaid note in favour of Hurrosoondery Dabee. At the time of the insolvency he deposited his Books in the Insolvent Court.

On the 6th of March, 1846, judgment having been obtained on the 16th of February, 1846, was signed in the action by Mackillop, Stewart, & Co., against Obhoychurn Bonnerjee for Rs. 64,865. 9. 3.

On the 24th of February, 1846, the firm of Mackillop, Stewart, & Co. filed a Bill on the equity side of the Supreme Court at Calcutta against Hurrosoondery Dabee, Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, and his Assignee, alleging that Hurrosoondery Dabee had sold to Obhoychurn Bonnerjee one moiety of her life estate in Doorgachurn Chuckerbutty's property, and that Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, to defeat the rights of their firm under the sequestration, had, on the pretence of being indebted to her and Nemychurn Bonnerjee and Ramessur Chowdry, under a Bond, executed the before-mentioned Deed, reconveying that property to her; and it prayed for a declaration that Obhoychurn Bonnerjee had a seizable interest in the estate, and to have the reconveyance declared fraudulent, and to have it cancelled and Hurrosoondery Dabee restrained from proceeding in her action of trespass.

Obhoychurn Bonnerjee and Hurrosoondery Dabee by their answers relied on the Deed of the 25th April, 1843, and submitted that it was valid and bona fide, and they denied the allegation of Hurrosoondery Dabee having ever assigned the moiety of her life interest as alleged.

The Court directed issues to be tried, as to whether Obhoychurn Bonnerjee had at the time of the seizure under the sequestration any seizable interest in the property attached, which, on the 18th of May, 1848, were found in the affirmative.

On the 13th of July, 1848, a decree was made in the suit, declaring that the Deed was, so far as the

1867.

TAREENY CHURN BONNERJEE

V.

MAITLAND.

1867.

TAREENY CHURN BONNERJEE

V.

MAITLAND.

interests of the Defendants, Hurrosoondery Dabee,
Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, and O'Dowda were concerned,
fraudulent and void as against the firm of Mackillop,
Stewart, & Co., and that Obhoychurn Bonnerjee's
interest was seizable and saleable under the seques-
tration, but it reserved the rights under the Deed of
Nemychurn Bonnerjee and Ramessur Chowdry (who
were not made parties to that suit) and all persons
other than the three Defendants.

Hurrosoondery Dabee applied for a rehearing of
the suit, but the decree was affirmed.

After the decree the Sheriff of Calcutta, under the Writ of sequestration, sold the right, title, and interest of Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, in the property so seized, to one Mackenzie, to whom the Sheriff executed conveyances.

On the 23rd of June, 1861, Hurroso ondery Dabee died, leaving Obhoychurn Bonnerjee and the Appellant her surviving.

On the 14th of September, 1861, Richard Stuart Palmer filed a Bill in the Supreme Court against Obhoychurn Bonnerjee and the Appellant, and John Cochrane as Obhoychurn Bonnerjee's Assignee. The Bill stated the proceedings in the suit above detailed, and further that on the 8th of July, 1858, Mackenzie sold and conveyed his interest to the Plaintiff, and claimed for him an absolute title to Obhoychurn Bonnerjee's moiety of the estate, and charged collusion between the Defendants to keep him out of possession, contending that the Deed of assignment, dated the 25th of April, 1843, was fraudulent and void; and the Bill prayed, first, that it might be declared that under the circumstances therein stated, the Deed was fraudulent and void as against the Plaintiff, and

1867.

TAREENY

CHURN

v.

MAITLAND.

that the same might be set aside as against the Plaintiff and cancelled; secondly, that the Defendant, Ramessur Chowdry, might be restrained by the Order BONNERJEE of the Court from setting up or insisting upon the Deed, or using the same as against the seizure under the Writ of sequestration, or against the title conveyed by the Bills of sale; thirdly, that it might be declared that, on the death of Hurrosoondery Dabee, the Plaintiff became and was entitled to an absolute estate in possession of one undivided moiety of the real estate, and of the rents and profits thereof; and that the Defendants might be directed by the Court to let the Plaintiff into possession of one undivided moiety of the rents and profits, and without any disturbance from Tareeny Churn Bonnerjee, as the person entitled to the other moiety thereof, or from any of the Defendants; fourthly, that the Defendants, Ramessur Chowdry and Obhoychurn Bonnerjee and Tareeny Churn Bonnerjee, and also Cochrane, as Assignee of Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, might be restrained by the Order and Injunction of the Court from selling, further meddling, or in any way dealing with the undivided moiety of the real estate, or with so much thereof as the Plaintiff was interested therein, and the rents and profits thereof; fifth, that an account might, if necessary, be taken of the rents and profits and other moneys, the product of the real estate, or of such portion thereof as the Plaintiff was interested therein, received by the Defendants, Ramessur Chowdry, Obhoychurn Bonnerjee, and Tareeny Churn Bonnerjee, or any or either of them, since the death of Hurrosoondery Dabee; and that the same, or a