1854. RABUTTY V. SIBCHUNDER MULLICK. that the order and decree of the Supreme Court of Judicature, of the 14th of April, 1852, be reversed, SREEMUTTY and that the sum of Rs. 59,000 be paid to the Appellant, with interest at the usual rate allowed by the Supreme Court, from the date of the death of the widow, Zoahra Jeebun Dossee, and that the costs of the Appellant in the suit in the Court below be taxed by the Master of the Supreme Court, and paid by the Respondent to the Appellant. THIS * Present: Members of the Judicial Committee, The Right Hon. Baron Parke, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan. 9th, 10th, & 11th Feb., 1854. A deed of sale conveying real estate, the property of a Defendant in a suit then pending in the Supreme Court at Bombay. Held, in the absence of satisfactory evidence of a bona fide consideration having been paid by the vendee, to be fraudulent and void, as against the creditors of the vendor, and to have been executed for the purpose of defeating a sequestration. Held,also, that a party in possession under such a deed was not entitled to any allowance for sums expended by himfor improvements upon the estate. A sequestrator in possession is not to be disturbed by a claimant, without leave of the Court. The usual mode is to apply for permission to bring an action of ejectment, or to examine, pro interesse suo. Under a writ of sequestration the sheriff seized a moiety of an estate in the possession of A.; A. presented a petition to the Court, entitled in a cause then pending, claiming the land under a deed of sale executed by 1854. MAHOMED 2. Mahomed Rahim Sherazee and others, Defendants, MUSADEE dismissing dismissing a petition of the Appellant, who had petitioned in the cause, and prayed that certain property, seized under a writ of sequestration issued in MEERZA ALLY that cause, as the property of the Defendant, Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee, should be relinquished by the sequestrator, or that the Appellant should be examined, pro interesse suo. MAHOMED KHAN. The principal question raised by the appeal was, whether a deed of sale, dated the 30th of December, 1845, made by Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee, conveying to the Appellant a moiety of a dock called Mazagon dock, together with a moiety of the buildings thereto belonging, was a bona fide conveyance for a valuable consideration, or whether it was not collusive between the parties, and intended to defraud the creditors of Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee. The facts which gave rise to the appeal were these: - On the 2nd of February, 1847, a writ of sequestration was issued in the above cause, commanding the Sheriff of Bombay to enter upon and sequester all the houses, lands, tenements, and the rents, issues, the Defendant, pendente lite, praying to be put in possession, and to be allowed to go before the Master and examine witnesses, pro interesse suo. Proceedings were taken under this petition before the Master, but afterwards it was agreed by consent, that the matter of the petition should be tried by the Court, and the witnesses examined viva voce by the Court at the hearing of the cause in which the petition was entitled. Held, that there was nothing irregular in such a mode of proceeding. By the constitution of the Supreme Courts in India, the Judges, for the purpose of the trial of an action, sit as a jury as well as Judges, and the same weight is to be given to a decision of the Judges, in such circumstances, as to the verdict of a jury in this country, in which the Judge who tries the cause makes no objection. Semble. This Court will not disturb a judgment of a Court in India upon a question of the credibility of witnesses; unless it is manifestly clear from the probabilities attached to certain circumstances in the case, that the Court below was wrong in the conclusion drawn from such evidence. 1854. MAHOMED SHERAZEE v. MAHOMED and profits thereof, and all the personal estate, debts, and effects of the Defendant, Aga Mahomed Rahim MUSADEE Sherazee, until he should perform an order made on the 7th of January, 1847, in that cause, for the payment of Rs. 100,000, being the amount of the first MEERZA ALLY instalment directed by the decree made in the same cause on the 25th of November, 1816, to be paid by him to the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court. On the 4th of March, 1847, another writ of sequestration was issued in the same terms, to enforce the payment of the further sum of Rs. 100,000. On the 27th of March, 1847, the Sheriff certified to the Court, that he had sequestered the Mazagon docks, by virtue of these two writs of sequestra tion. On the 8th of April, 1847, the Appellant filed a petition in the cause, alleging that he had, for many years before and since the year 1840, had commercial dealings with the Defendant, Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee, to a large amount, in the course of which balances had been, from time to time, and in the Dewallee of each year, ascertained and stated, and that the last of such annual statements of account occurred on the 30th of October, 1845, on which occasion, Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee was found to be indebted to the Appellant in the sum of Rs. 172,900. 2q. 88r., which Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee acknowledged, by placing his signature at the foot of such account in the book of the Appellant, and that the Appellant after such adjustment pressed him for payment; but being unable to discharge the same, he proposed to sell and convey to the Appellant one moiety of the ground, buildings, and premises belonging to him, 1854. MUSADEE MAHOMED CAZUM บ. MAHOMED KHAN. situate at Mazagon, and called the Mazagon docks, which proposal the Appellant entertained, and it was agreed between the Appellant and Aga Mahomed SHERAZEE Rahim Sherazee, that the Appellant should purchase MEERZA ALLY a moiety of the premises for the sum of Rs. 324,500; and, accordingly, in the month of December following such last-mentioned adjustment, the Appellant paid, from time to time, large sums of money to Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee, which on the 30th day of that month amounted, inclusive of the balance of Rs. 172,900. 2q. 88r. due to the Appellant, to the sum of Rs. 324,500, whereupon Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee, pursuant to such agreement, and in consideration of the sum of Rs. 324,500, by an indenture, dated the 30th of December, 1845, and made between Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazce, of the one part, and the Appellant of the other part, absolutely sold and released to the Appellant, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, an undivided moiety of him, Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee, of the property therein described, and called the Mazagon dock, in the Island of Bombay, and that the Appellant entered into possession and became interested in the premises jointly and in equal shares with Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee; and the petition prayed that the Sheriff of Bombay might be ordered to withdraw the writs of sequestration, and relinquish one moiety of the dock to the Appellant, and that, if the Court should think fit, the Respondents (the Plaintiffs in the suit) might be directed to exhibit interrogatories in the Office of the Master of the Court, for the examination of the Appellant, and for the discovery of his interest in the dock, or that such other order should be made as might be fit. The Appellant at the same time filed an affidavit of himself, reiterating the allegations contained in his petition. On the 8th of April, 1847, the petition came on to 1854. MUSADEE ΜΑΠΟΜΕΙ CAZUM SHERAZEE MAHOMED KHAN. be heard, when it was ordered, that the Appellant MEFRZA ALLY should come in and be examined, pro interesse suo, in the moiety of the Mazagon dock, and that the Respondents should file interrogatories for that purpose, before the Master, and if the Respondents should think fit to reply to the examination of the Appellant put in by him in answer to such interrogatories, either party should be at liberty to examine witnesses, viva voce, before the Master, touching the Appellant's claim, and that the Master should look into the examination and evidence of such witnesses, if any, and certify to the Court whether the Appellant had made out a title to the moiety of the dock and premises, or any and what part thereof, and the Master was to be at liberty to state any special circumstances, and the parties were to be at liberty to apply to the Court as they might be advised. An interrogatory was accordingly exhibited by the Respondents before the Master, for the examination of the Appellant, and on the 21st of June, 1847, the Appellant filed his answer and examination, stating, amongst other things, that he was the bona fide owner of, and was entitled for his absolute and exclusive use and benefit to, one undivided moiety of the Mazagon dock, and he set forth a long statement of his business transactions with Aga Mahomed Rahim Sherazee, and filed a schedule showing the balance alleged to be due to him. The Respondents, by leave of the Court, afterwards exhibited a further interrogatory for the examination |