GANPATRAO NAGOBA GANDLI Vs. A. V. ZINZARDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in revision is whether the house now in question vested in the Receiver when either the applicant Ganpatrao or his father Nagoba were declared insolvent. The applicant contends that it did not because it is exempt under Section 28(6), Provincial Insolvency Act, read with Section 60(1)(c), Civil P.C. The lower Court holds it vested.

(2.) THE applicant's father Nagoba was declared insolvent on 17-4-1926 and the applicant on 28-3-1927. A number of petitions were presented against them. Nagoba admitted acts of insolvency but the son contested hence the difference in the dates of adjudication. When the petitions were made Nagoba and his son both put in written statements on 22-2-1926. Nagoba stated that he and his son had, among other things, a money-lending shop at Nagpur and asked the Court to make arrangements for the maintenance and residence of his family and himself. In the list of property he mentioned a shop at Nagpur. The applicant said in his statement that the information given by his father in his statement regarding their ancestral property and dues and family business was correct, but he contended that debts incurred by his father were not binding on him and so he should not be declared insolvent.

(3.) IT is evident that the Receiver thereupon took possession of the house because the accounts and other documents show that he executed the annual repairs and turned the tiles every year and purchased new tiles. When we say took 'possession' we do not mean "occupation" because of course that remained with Nagoba and his son in accordance with the Court's order. But he took over what is regarded as "possession" in the eye of the law.