PUTTASWAMAPPA Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the original petitioner is directed against the order dated 29-5-1973 passed by the District Judge, Mysore in Insolvency case No. 2 of 1968 on his file, dismissing the petition instituted by the creditor under Sec. 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, to declare respondents 1 and 2 in the petition as insolvents and to take cosequent steps against them.

(2.) The petitioner averred in his petition that he was a creditor of respondents 1 and 2. That respondents 1 and 2 were indebted to him having borrowed Rs. 1,000/- on the foot of a pronote dated 14-4-1976 and that they failed to repay the same on demand and further that they committed an act of insolvency inasmuch as they transferred the properties mentioned in the schedle to the petition in favour of respondent-3, by a registered sale deed dated 18-12-1967. He further averred by an amendment to the petition that in the first week of August 1968, they transferred some of the moveables in favour of respondent-3 which also Amounted to an act of insolvency. Hence, he prayed for declaring respondents 1 and 2 as insolvents and for appointing a receiver with regard to the properties etc. The petition was resisted by respondents 1 and 2. They denied that they were indebted under the pronote to the petitioner. They denied having received any amount under the pronote. They contended that the petition was beyond three months. According to them they had not committed any act of insolvency.

(3.) The learned District Judge who enquired into the petition recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 3 is Puttaswamappa the petitioner. P.W. 2 is Sri Vishakantiah. He has deposed that he attested the pronote. P.W. 3 Somaraja Urs has attested the sale deed. He has also spoken with regard to the loan Respondents did not examine themselves before the learned District Judge, Ex-P1, the copy of the sale deed was got marked. The learned! District Judge appreciating the evidence on record held that the debt was not proved, that the pronote was not admissible in evidence, that the act of insolvency was not proved and further the petition was not maintainable as it was beyond three months of the alleged act of insolvency. In that view he dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up in appeal before this Court.