VITHOBA BHANJI NAGMOTI Vs. ANNA BALIRAM KUNBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows: One Bakaram had three sons and a grandson who are shown in the family tree given below: BAKARAM ___________________________________________ | | | Baliram (Ins.) Rajaram Tulsiram | Anna (Respt. Objector).

(2.) ON 9th August 1918 there was a partition in this family and the appellant's case is that Bakaram obtained, no share in the family property at this partition but was given a maintenance allowance instead. The arrangement was that each of the three sons was to pay him Rs. 300 a year making in all a total of Rs. 900. It was also agreed that if any one of the sons should make default in the payment of the amount which he had undertaken to pay, then he would place Bakaram in possession of one of the fields (specified in each case) which had fallen to his share. The appellant contends that the son Baliram, who is the insolvent here, did not pay and so Bakaram filed a suit for possession in pursuance of the agreement made at the partition and obtained a decree for possession of field No. 129, the field which forms the bone of contention in these proceedings. The question is whether Bakaram obtained an absolute interest in that field or whether he was placed in possession for his lifetime only in lieu of the maintenance allowance due to him, the proprietary title to the field remaining in Baliram.

(3.) THE receiver took possession of the property covered by the sale deed of 25th February 1930 and obtained an order for attachment of the field which is now the bone of contention, namely S. No. 129. On 8th May 1936 Anna, the respondent-objector, filed a petition claiming the property as his on the ground that Bakaram had obtained an absolute interest in it and had thereupon willed it to him. The receiver appeared and after obtaining two adjournments in order to investigate the matter; ultimately made a statement on 30th July, 1936 which is to the following; effect: "The application is not opposed. The S. No. 129...be released as prayed for." On this the. Court passed an order on the same date releasing this field from attachment, After this, on 18th August 1936, the creditor Vithoba, who is the appellant here, and, others, filed a petition asking that the objection be inquired into on the merits on the ground that the receiver had mistakenly admitted the objector's claim. This petition has been dismissed by both the Courts below and So the creditor Vithoba appeals, here. The receiver also put in a petition for review and that was also dismissed. We are not concerned with that here. The receiver; in any case has not filed an appeal against; the order dismissing his petition and there, does not seem to be any case for review so, far as he is concerned. As regards the creditors' application, I am clear that they had a right to appeal against the action of the receiver in making the statement of, 30th July 1936. This right, in my opinion, is conferred upon the creditors by Section 68, Provincial Insolvency Act, which is as follows: If...any of the creditors...is aggrieved by any act...of the receiver, he may apply to the Court and the Court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of and make such order as it thinks just.