SHEO RAJ BAHADUR MATHUR Vs. ABDUL AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from order against the decision of a Judge hearing an insolvency appeal. The case raises an important and an interesting question of law.

(2.) The facts which give rise to this question, briefly stated, are these: On 4-9-1947, two creditors of one Noor Ahmad applied under Section 9, Provincial Insolvency Act for declaring Noor Ahmad an insolvent. In their petition they stated the act of insolvency to have been a transfer by Noor Ahmad of his entire immovable properties, by a sale deed dated 4-6-1947 in favour of Abdul Aziz, the opposite party to this revision.

(3.) Noor Ahmad was declared an insolvent on 9-1-1948, by the Insolvency Judge. The Insolvency Judge found that the transfer by Noor Ahmad of his immovable properties made on 4-6-1947, in favour of Abdul Aziz had been made with the object of defeating his creditors. The act of Noor Ahmad in making the transfer of his entire immovable property to Abdul Aziz with the object of defeating and delaying his creditors was an act of insolvency within the meaning of Section 6(b), Provincial Insolvency Act, and, therefore, the adjudication of Noor Ahmad as an insolvent was perfectly justified on the finding arrived at by the Insolvency Judge. After the adjudication order had been made, the assets or the property of Noor Ahmad vested in the official receiver under the law.