HARDAYAN DASS Vs. JAGARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur, adjudicating the appellants insolvents upon seventeen petitions presented by creditors. The acts of insolvency were substantially the same in all the petitions. The main act of insolvency which was relied upon was that the petitioning creditors had executed a mortgage, dated the 14 October 1931, which was described in the petition as a farzi deed of mortgage with the intent to defeat or delay the creditors. They also relied upon an allegation that the debtors had suspended payment. They further alleged that the debtors within the last few days, to use the words in the petition, have secreted cloth worth about Rs. 10,000 and other stock in trade.

(2.) By that allegation I understand that they were alleging that there was a fraudulent transfer of property. Unless that could be relied upon, it is difficult to understand exactly what, in respect of this allegation, was the act of insolvency upon which the petitioners relied. They also alleged that with the intent to defraud creditors the opposite party No. 2 secluded himself and keeps himself absent from the usual place of business. With regard to the allegation of disposing the stock in trade, it is quite clear that there was no evidence which would in any way substantiate such an allegation.

(3.) As regards the statement that the debtors had suspended payments, it is also equally clear that the evidence which was adduced by the petitioners on this point is insufficient to substantiate their case. The evidence which was given on this point was to the effect that although the various creditors had made a demand on the debtors for the payment of their debts the debtors stated that they were unable to pay. This clearly is insufficient and the matter has been dealt with recently by this Court in Lakhi Prasad V/s. Ugramohan Misra 1933 Pat 461.