THOMAS JOHN Vs. PALAI CENTRAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions are raised in this appeal, one on merits and the other regarding the jurisdiction of the lower court to pass the order, which is questioned in the appeal before us. The latter question does not seem to have been raised before the lower court, but is posed for decision before us for the first time in appeal.

(2.) A few facts which are relevant for the appreciation of the questions argued, may be briefly stated. The Palai Central Bank Ltd. filed an application before the District Court, Parur, in 1952 for adjudicating the appellant before us an insolvent. This petition was later on transferred to the file of the Additional District Court, Parur and was re-numbered as I. P. No. 41 of 1957. The Jai Hind Bank Ltd., Thodupuzha, sought to get itself impleaded in this petition as a supplementary petitioner, which was disallowed by the lower court with the observation that the said bank was allowed to watch the proceedings. Thereafter, the Jai Hind Bank Ltd. filed another petition, namely, C.M.P. No. 2309 of 1955 seeking to get itself impleaded as a supplementary 2nd respondent, which was allowed by the lower court by its order dated 24th March, 1955. Before that, on 5th January 1953, a petition for winding up the Jai Hind Bank Ltd. was filed and on 24th July, 1957 an order for winding up was passed. Subsequently on 21st June, 1958, the lower court adjudicated the appellant before us insolvent and the appeal, as already indicated, is directed against that order of adjudication.

(3.) The contention that the appellant has not committed any act of insolvency may be straightaway disposed of. The act alleged is the execution of a partition deed by the appellant and his brothers and sisters, under which a major portion of the properties has been allotted to the brothers and sisters and also to the wives of the appellant and his brother, in lieu of large amounts of sthreedhanam alleged to have been received by them at the time of their marriages. It is in evidence that the liabilities of the appellant exceed a lakh of rupees. There is no evidence, at any rate satisfactory evidence, to show that the properties allotted to the share of the appellant are sufficient to meet his liabilities. Moreover, he has not made any attempt to pay any of the several debts, which indicates that he is not in a position to pay them. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the lower court on this question and bold that on merits the order of the lower court is correct.