KISHENLAL Vs. GISSOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by Kishenlal (Respondent No. 3 in the Court of Civil Judge) against the order dated 31-3-1978 passed by the District Judge, Kolar in M.A. 20/76 reversing the order dated 6-3-76 passed by the Civil Judge, Kolar in I.C. 4/67 dismissing the petition filed under Section 6 of the Insolvency Act.

(2.) Respondent No. 2-Nathumal Satia executed a mort-gage in favour of Respondent No. 1's son Udaychand for Rs. 6000/- on 27-9-1963. Respondent No. 2 also executed a simple mortgage in favour of Respondent No. 1-Gissoolal for Rs. 16,000/- on 24- 4-1974 as per Ex.D1.

(3.) According to Respondent No. 1, Respondent No.2 Satia executed a pronote-Ex.D2 for Rs. 3,500/- in his favour on 30th April, 1964. According to him, the Respondent No. 2 borrowed again Rs. 1,200/- from him on 22-6 64 as per Ex.P2. Notwithstanding the several demands made, Respondent No.2 did not pay the said pronote debts and mort-gage debts. According to Respondent No. 1 - G. Gissoolal, Satia-Respondent No. 2 sold the 'B' schedule properties in favour of Respondent No. 3 Kishenchand on 20-2-65 under Ex.P6 with a view to defeat or delay his (Respondent No.1's) claim and the claims of other creditors. Hence, he filed I..C. 1/65 before the District Judge, Kolar. He filed I..C.2/65 before the Civil Judge, Kolar. He filed another I.C. in the Munsiff Court. However, as the amount involved in the insolvency petition was less than Rs. 20,000/-, the District Court trans-the insolvency case to the Court of Civil Judge, Kolar. The Civil Judge has numbered it as I.C.4/67. The parties led both oral and documentary evidence. The Civil Judge held that the insolvency petition was a collusive one between Respondents 1 and 2 and that it was also fradulent and it was only meant to avoid the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 3. He accordingly, dismissed the petition. Respondent No. 1 who was the creditor-petitioner in the insolvency case, approached the District Judge with M.A. 20/76. The District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge and adjudged . Respondent No. 2 - Nathumal Satia as an insolvent. Hence, the revision by Kishenlal (i.e. Respondent No. 3 in I.C. 4/67) who is a purchaser of 'B' Schedule properties from Respondent No. 3.