BODDULURI PULLAYYA Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bodduluri Pullayya, the appellant in C.M.S.A. No. 42 and 43 of 1975 was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 1 of 1960 and the Official Receiver, Guntur was appointed to administer his estate by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet on 15-9-1961. On 17-10-1959. the appellant executed a gift deed in favour of his wife with respect to some properties. The Official Receiver filed I.A. No. 2082 of 1961 under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for setting aside that gift deed. That application was allowed by the Insolvency Coart on 12-7-1968. Meanwhile on 19-10-1965 the Insolvency Court passed an annulment order (Ex. X. 24) under section 43 and vesting the properties in the Official Receiver under S. 37. The Official Receiver sold Ac. 13-58 cents belonging to the insolvent on 2-3-1972. It was purchased by Popuri Venkat Rao. He also sold Ac. 4-65 cents covered by the gift deed on 20-3-1972 to Patibandla Bhoopathaiah. The insolvent filed I.A. No. 531/1972 and I.A. No. 674/72 to set aside those two sales. He con'ended that the Official Receiver had no power to auction the properties since the adjudication was annulled on 19-10 1965 without proper vesting under sec. 37. He also submitted that there were irregularities in conducting the sales, that the price fetched was low and the sales were brought about by collusion and fraud. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that there were no grounds to set aside the sales. At the time of hearing of the arguments, a memo was filed by the insolvent offering to deposits the entire amounts due to the creditors and compensation., as ordered by the Court to the purchasers or in the alternative he undertook to see that he would get double the amount if the properties were resold. In view of this offer the learned Subordinate Judge felt that before dismissing the petitions a chance should be given to the insolvent to deposit the amounts due to the creditors and also the purchaser price paid by the purchasers and compensation and interest on those amounts. Accordingly, he granted time to the insolvent to deposit those amounts on or before 20-6-1974, failing which the petitions would stand dismissed with costs,. Questioning the two orders, the insolvent filed A.S. Nos. 85 and 86 of 1974 and the two purchasers filed A.S. Nos. 88 and 89 of 1974 in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Guntur. The very same contentions were raised by the insolvent in the appeals. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed all the four appeals confirming the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge. He directed the insolvent to deposit the amounts with interest on or before 15th July 1975.

(2.) The insolvent has filed C.M.S. Nos. 42 and 43 of 1975 and the purchasers have filed C.M.S. A. No. 4 and 5 of 1976 in this Court questioning the judgment.

(3.) In the two appeals filed by the insolvent Sri Seetharamaiah, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised three contentions. First there is no order under S. 37 vesting the property in the Official Receiver, Guntur. Therefore, the property reverts to the insolvent. Secondly, even assuming that there was an order vesting the property in the Official Receiver, Guntur it is only the property that was available on the date of the order but not the property that subsequently becomes available that vests in him. Thirdly, when once the annulment order is passed under S. 43, neither the Court nor the Receiver has jurisdiction to sell the property. Al ernatively, it is submitted that the Receiver cannot sell the property withou the permission of the Court.