MADDIPOTI PERAMMA Vs. GANDRAPU KRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 18 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the appointment of a Receiver vests the property of the insolvent in him, and under Section 20 it is the duty of the Receiver to realise that property and he has power to sell it. This power is exercised by virtue of the authority conferred by the Statute, and not of a decree or order of the Insolvent Court directing a sale. There was, therefore, no proceeding before the Court with respect, to such sale within the meaning of Section 47 and the rules of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the sale of property in execution of a decree or order do not apply.

(2.) It is argued that under Section 18(3) the Court had power to remove a person in possession of property of the insolvent from possession, but this power is evidently intended to enable the Receiver to obtain control of the insolvent s property and not to provide for the determination of questions of title as between the insolvent and third parties. This is indicated by the proviso to this sub-section, which limits this power to persons whom the insolvent has a present right so to remove." I do not think that this provision was intended to confer jurisdiction over a person against whom the insolvent had merely a right enforceable by a suit.

(3.) The parties to this suit were not parties to the proceedings in insolvency pending before the District Court in which the order in question purported to be made, and that Court was, therefore, net competent to try the issue now raised between these parties and its finding is not binding upon them (Civil Procedure Code, Section 11).