Fraudulent re-entry cannot defeat an execution purchaser's title, and wrongful possessors cannot retain possession on the basis of a charge.

Fraudulent or collusive re-entry and sub-lease could not defeat an execution purchaser's title where the surrounding conduct showed a sham arrangement and wrongful possession. Although the plaintiff took subject to existing landlord's charge decrees, the defendants could not rely on those charges to justify continued possession because their entry was not lawfully derived and was itself wrongful. A wrongdoer in possession was also denied compensation for improvements, though removal of machinery was permitted. The result was that the plaintiff's right to recover possession was upheld, with only a brief postponement of delivery.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the resolution for voluntary winding up and the subsequent re-entry and sub-lease were fraudulent and ineffective against the plaintiff's title; (ii) whether the plaintiff's purchase at execution sale was subject to the landlord's charge decrees and whether the defendants could retain possession until those dues were paid.

Issue (i): Whether the resolution for voluntary winding up and the subsequent re-entry and sub-lease were fraudulent and ineffective against the plaintiff's title.

Analysis: The plaintiff had purchased the judgment-debtors' interest in execution, while the defendants relied on a purported voluntary liquidation and re-entry by the lessor. The Court found that the evidence established a fraudulent and collusive scheme, including the surrounding documents, conduct of the parties, and the manner in which possession was taken. The prior decree setting aside the liquidation proceedings reinforced, though did not by itself conclude, the inference that the liquidation was not bona fide. The Court also found that the re-entry was in substance by defendant 1 and not by the lessor personally, and that the alleged forfeiture-based entry was wrongful.

Conclusion: The voluntary liquidation device and the consequent re-entry could not defeat the plaintiff's title, and the defendants' possession from 15 October 1924 was wrongful.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff's purchase at execution sale was subject to the landlord's charge decrees and whether the defendants could retain possession until those dues were paid.

Analysis: The decrees obtained by the landlord were charge decrees, and an execution purchaser takes subject to existing charges and incumbrances. The Court held, however, that the defendants' possession was not one lawfully derived from the mortgagor or charge-holder but was wrongful possession after a fraudulent re-entry. In that situation, the charge did not entitle the defendants to retain possession as against the plaintiff. The Court further held that the defendants, being wrongfully in possession, were not entitled to compensation for improvements, though they were allowed to remove the machinery brought on to the mine.

Conclusion: The plaintiff's title was subject to the charge, but the defendants were not entitled to continue in possession; the decree for possession was substantially upheld with a limited deferment of delivery.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the substantive challenges to the plaintiff's right to recover possession, and the decree was maintained with only a short postponement of delivery of possession and dismissal of the cross-objections.

Ratio Decidendi: A fraudulent or collusive re-entry cannot defeat an execution purchaser's title, and a wrongdoer in possession cannot insist on retaining possession or claim compensation for improvements merely because a charge exists against the property.

---