THILLA RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. KTABRAJAGOPALA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act arises out of a petition by a creditor to adjudge the 1 respondent an insolvent. The learned District Judge found that the petitioner was a consenting party to the deed of arrangement executed on 3 December, 1921, (Ex. I) for the benefit of all the creditors and on this ground she was disentitled from filing this petition and dismissed it. The petitioner appeals.

(2.) On the evidence we have no hesitation in finding that the petitioner was a consenting party to the deed. She is a marks-woman but there is evidence to show that she was present and put her mark along with that of another lady. The petitioner is the aunt of the 1 respondent who still lives in her house and it seems to be probable that the petition has been filed in collusion with him.

(3.) The question of law argued for the appellant is that there is a difference between the law in England and in India on the question of the disability of a creditor who assented to a deed of arrangement. The contention of Mr. Krishnaswami Iyer is that when Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act now in force (V of 1920) was enacted, the Indian Legislature had before it, the English Act of 1914, but did not choose to enact the clause relating to deeds of arrangement towards the end of Sub-section (1) of Section 4.