BASANTI BAI Vs. NANHE MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a claimant, Mt. Basanti Bai, arising out of certain insolvency proceedings. On an application presented by a creditor of the firm of Nanhe Mal, the firm, which was owned by Nanhe Mal and his three sons including Raj Narain, the youngest, was adjudicated an insolvent on the 9 of October 1922. On the 21 of April 1922 and the 11 of May 1922, Raj Narain had transferred by two registered sale-deeds two houses which had been previously acquired in his name, to Mt. Basanti Bai, the appellant. The first deed was for Rs. 800 and the second one for Rs. 2,500. The entire sale considerations of these two deeds were paid before the Sub. Registrar.

(2.) Jugal Kishore, one of the creditors, put in an application, on the 22nd of February 1923, before the Court stating that the two houses, which had been ostensibly sold in April a May, 1922, were part of the assets of the insolvent firm and should be attached by the receiver. This application was sent to the official receiver with directions to take proceedings after an enquiry. The receiver submitted a report on the 6 of April 1923 stating that the case of the applicant that these two transfers were fictitious was supported by a number of witnesses. In his report he expressed the opinion that the transfers in question did not appear to have been made in good faith or for valuable consideration.

(3.) Apparently the learned District Judge did not treat the receiver as a party to these proceedings. The proceedings were initially started by Jugal Kishore, one of the creditors, and the order passed by the Judge and the formal order prepared by his office show that Jugal Kishore was represented as the applicant in the proceedings. It does, however, appear that the receiver, on behalf of the creditors, was allowed, to cross-examine the witnesses produced by Mt. Basanti Bai. The formal order which was prepared did not contain the name of the receiver in the array of the parties at all, with the result that when the appellant filed her appeal in this Court the did not implead the receiver.