V.SANKAR Vs. KANAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the second respondent in I.P.No.26 of 2001 has in this civil revision petition impugned the fair and decreetal orders, dated 26.04.2004, made in C.M.A.No.3 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Karur, reversing the fair and decreetal orders, dated 23.09.2003, made in I.P.No.26 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Karur.

(2.) The said I.P.No.26 of 2001 has been laid by the respondents 1 and 2 , under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Act?).

(3.) The case of the respondents 1 and 2 is that the third respondent herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the first respondent on 03.11.1999 and in evidence of the same he had executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest thereon and further, the third respondent herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the second respondent on 19.01.2000 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest thereon and despite several requests and demands, the third respondent had not cared to repay any amount either towards principal or interest and while so, without taking any steps to discharge the above mentioned debts, the third respondent, who is the absolute and exclusive owner of the B-Schedule property detailed in the petition with an intention to defeat and defraud the respondents 1 and 2 and the other creditors and it is stated that to the best knowledge of the respondents 1 and 2, there are several creditors to the third respondent, schemingly had sold the B-Schedule property under a registered Sale Deed, dated 25.05.2001, in favour of the revision petitioner and the said sale deed is only a make believe document and sham and nominal with an intention to defeat the creditors and to escape from the clutches of the creditors and the above said sale is not true and not binding on the creditors and further under the above said sale deed, the revision petitioner cannot derive any title to the B-Schedule property and as the sale deed had been undervalued, the document had not been handed over to the revision petitioner and hence, prayed for to adjudicate the third respondent as insolvent and to order the B-Schedule property be vested with the official receiver for further process.