BUNDU Vs. JAWALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a creditor's first appeal from order directed against the order of the Insolvency Judge rejecting his application to declare the deceased respondent Smt. Jawala Devi as an insolvent.

(2.) THE appellant had moved an application under S. 9 read with S. 13 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that a loan of Rs. 15,000/- had been advanced to her under a pronote and receipt on 13th April, 1970 but on 21st Oct. l970 she transferred her entire immoveable property in favour of her near relations for a grossly inadequate sum. THE purpose of such transfer was to defeat and delay the creditors. It was further alleged that after the date of transfer, the debtor had been secluding herself in such a manner so as to deprive her creditors of the means of communicating with her. This application was moved on 4th Nov. 1970.

(3.) THE sale deeds, which are three in number, were actually executed by the debtor on 21st Oct. , 1970. THEy were, however, registered in the office of the sub-registrar on 21-11-1970. In the intervening period on 4th Nov. , 1970 a petition under S. 9 read with S. 13 (3) of the Act had been moved. THE Court below held that since the effective date for any sale-deed is the date of registration, the cause of action for making such an application had not arisen till 21st Nov. 1970, when the three sale deeds were actually registered. THE petition having been moved on 4th Nov. 1970, the same was held to be premature. THE court held that up to 4-11-70 no act of insolvency had been committed by the debtor and as such the application was not maintainable. Although it held that a loan of Rs. 15,000/- had been advanced to the debtor on 30th April, 1970 yet it went on to hold that the petitioner had failed to prove that the debtor had either absented or secluded herself so as to cut off all means of communication with her. In fact in his statement recorded at the time of hearing the petitioner did not even make a mention to this effect. In view of this the learned Insolvency Judge dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the decision, the creditor, had come up to this court for redress.