LAWS(KAR)-1962-10-4

RAMASUBBA SASTRY Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER MYSORE AND

Decided On October 30, 1962
RAMASUBBA SASTRY Appellant
V/S
OFFICIAL RECEIVER MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected revision petitions. They arise from Insolvency Case No. 16 of 1943-44 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mysore. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 809 and 954 of 1960 arise from the Order in I. A. No. 3 in that Insolvency Case which was an application filed by the Official Receiver under Section 54 of the Mysore Insolvency Act, to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act" to set aside the alienations in favour of the respondents therein who are the petitioners in this Court. That application was allowed and the alienations were set aside. Civil Revision Petition No. 963 of 1960 arise from I. A. No. 4 which was an application filed under Section 35 of the "Act" by some of the alienees. That application was dismissed. The Orders of the Insolvency Court in I. A. Nos. 3 and 4 were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mysore in Regular Appeals Nos. 47, 48 and 56 of 1958 on his file. Regular Appeal No. 48 of 1958 was filed against the order in I. A. No. 4. Regular Appeals Nos. 47 and 56 of 1958 were filed by the alienees against the order in I. A. No. 3.

(2.) Though in the Courts below several contentions had been urged on behalf of the petitioners, in this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged only two grounds, i.e., (i) on A true interpretation of Section 9(I)(c) of the "Act" the Courts below should have held that the Insolvency Petition was filed beyond the time mentioned in that provision and therefore the same is not sustainable; and (ii) the alienation under Ex. P-4 which was made the basis of adjudication is no alienation in the eye of the law and therefore the same could not have afforded a ground for adjudication.

(3.) To properly appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to set out in brief the material facts. Insolvent K. C. D. Boriah was the owner of the properties involved in these proceedings. He was heavily indebted. To defraud his creditors, he sold all his properties to one Srikantiah on 25-3-1936 as per the sale deed Ex. P-I. One of his creditors viz., Venkatachar filed O. S. No. 32/1 1937-38 on the file of the learned subordinate Judge, Mysore, praying for a declaration that the alienation in question is void as it was effected to defeat or delay the creditors of Boriah. That suit was dismissed in the trial Court, but in appeal (R. A. No. 83/41-42) (Mys) the High Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and granted the declaration prayed for. There after the other creditors of Boriah also obtained decrees against him. Venkatachar realised a portion of the amount decreed in his favour, in execution of his decree. At that time, Srikantiah purported to take another sale deed from Boriah on 20-9-1943 (Ex. P-4). The said sale deed was registered on 8-4-1944. Under that sale deed, the very properties which had been previously sold to Srikantiah under Ex. P-I were again sold to him. Soon thereafter, two creditors of Boriah viz., Ningamma and Thimmegowda filed an Insolvency Petition on 15-5-1944 praying for adjudicating Boriah as an insolvent. Boriah was adjudged as an insolvent. Thereafter the Official Receiver filed I. A. No. 3 to set aside the alienation in favour of Srikantiah as well as alienations effected by Sri kantiah to other subsequent to the execution of Ex. P-4. The petitioners in C. R. P. No. 809/60 are the alienees from Srikantiah. The other facts are not material for our present purpose.