K KRISHNAN Vs. S AYYATHURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-debtor in I. P. 1 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam, is the revision petitioner. The respondents herein were arrayed as creditors in the said insolvency petition. The petitioner filed the petition under Ss. 10 and 13(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudging himself as an insolvent. The material averments made in the petition are that the petitioner is a resident of Thirumangalam; that he suffered heavy loss in the choir business which he carried on with his brothers; that he has got a one-fourth share in the property shown in Sch. B to the petition; that he is earning only Rs. 150 per month; that he is unable to pay his debts and that he should be adjudged an insolvent in the said circumstances. Respondents 1 and 3 contested the petition mainly on two grounds (I) that the District Munsif, Thirumangalam, has no jurisdiction to entertain the insolvency petition because the petitioner is residing at Nagercoil and the property described in the petition is also situate in Nagercoil; (ii) that the petitioner cannot be said to be a person unable to pay his debts. The District Munsif, Thirumangalam, dismissed the petition and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred C. M. A. 42 of 1974, which came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Madurai. The appellate Court concurred with the findings of the first court and dismissed the appeal. The present revision is directed against the orders of the appellate court.

(2.) The question that came up for consideration in this revision and as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would be (1) whether the courts below have conformed to the principles laid down under the Act for consideration of a debtor's petition for self adjudication on the ground that he is unable to pay his debts; and (2) whether the debtors has not satisfied the provisions of S. 11 of the Act with reference to the presentation of the petition before the District Munsif, Thirumangalam. The law with regard to the consideration of a petition by a debtor under S. 10(1) of the Act is well settled by decisions of this court. The proviso to S. 24(1)(a) of the Act reads as follows- "Provided that, where the debtor is the petitioner, he shall, for the purpose of proving his inability to pay his debts, be required to furnish only such proof as to satisfy the Court that there are prima facie grounds for believing the same and the court, if and when so satisfied shall not be bound to hear any further evidence thereon." Ramaprasada Rao J. defined the scope of enquiry under S. 24 of the Act, in Lingasami Goundar v. Subramanian, (1974) 2 Mad LJ 166 in the following terms :-

(3.) Equally so, the appellate Court has launched upon a deep enquiry as to the bona fides of the claims of the debtor. This is evident from the discussion of the case by the appellate court in para 4 of its judgment, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder-