KEHAR SINGH HARPHUL Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal from an order arises out of an insolvency proceeding. The facts are these: Five persons, namely Amar Singh, Sughra, Atru, Kalia and Chetu, jointly sold the property in dispute for Rs. 1,000/- by a registered deed, dated 5th May 1953, in favour of Telu and Kehar Singh appellants. On 14th June 1954, Lachhman Singh and Hari Singh, the creditors, presented a petition of insolvency against Amar Singh and others, the vendors, alleging that the sale was fraudulent and effected with a view to defeat or delay the claims of the creditors and hence it amounted to an Act of insolvency. The application was dismissed in the first instance, but it was accepted by the District Judge on appeal. Amar Singh and others were declared insolvents. The main dispute in the application was as regards the nature of the property sold. The District Judge found the property to be a vacant site and upset the decision of the Insolvency Judge that it was a house and hence immune from attachment and sale. A revision petition presented by the insolvents was dismissed by this Court on 20th October 1954.

(2.) Thereafter, the receiver presented an application under section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for annulment of the sale dated 5th May 1953 in favour of Telu and Kehar Singh appellants. The vendees resisted the application asserting that the property sold was a residential house and being immune from attachment and sale it did not vest in the receiver and also that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration. One of the issues raised was-

(3.) On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the Privy Council decision referred to above was given in a case under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, the provisions of which are widely different from those of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and therefore the observations made therein would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The contention, in my view, has much force and has to be accepted. The Principles laid down in Ex parte Learoyd; In re, Foulds (1878) 10 Ch. D. 3, a case decided under the Bankruptcy Act of England, were applied to a case under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohamed Siddique's case AIR 1943 P. C. 130, because the relevant provisions of the two acts were found to be almost similar. The same, however, cannot be said with respect to the provisions contained in the Provincial Insolvency Act. Under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, the insolvency of the debtor shall be deemed to have relation back to and commences from the time of the commission of the Act of insolvency on which the order of adjudication is made against him. The effect of it is that the property of the insolvent vests in the receiver from the time of the commission of the Act of insolvency and the alienation's effected by the insolvent thereafter are void under the law. Section 28(7) of the Provincial Insolvency Act says: