DAMMU VIGHNESAM Vs. VARANASI LAKSHMI NARASINGHA MURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certain debtors against an order of the learned District Judge of Ganjam Puri, dated 9 August 1937, by which he held that the appellants before us had committed an act of insolvency and being also unable to pay their debts should be adjudicated insolvents. The proceedings began upon an application filed by the respondents, who are two creditors, on 30 April 1937 by which they prayed that the appellants should be adjudged insolvents. The main allegations in the petition were that the appellants had transferred all the immovable properties to their relations for payment of fictitious debts and that they had left their place of residence so as to place themselves beyond the reach of their creditors who were entitled to be paid their dues; there was also an allegation that the books of account Were being tampered with.

(2.) The learned District Judge took up the case on 9 August 1937, after refusing an application by the appellants for an adjournment. The oral evidence consists of one witness for the petitioners and one of the appellants Dammu Vighnesam examined himself; the appellants also placed upon the record a number of documents three of which are sale deeds, dated 16 April 1937; the fourth is a sale deed dated 17 April 1937; there are also two mortgage deeds bearing dates 17 April and 20 April of the same year. The learned Judge upon a consideration of the oral evidence and the documentary evidence adduced in the case and bearing in mind the circumstances under which the transfers were made came to the conclusion that the appellants were unable to pay their debts and that the transfers which they undoubtedly made in April 1937 were either no transfers at all or that these were transfers by which the creditors stated in these deeds were fraudulently preferred.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellants strenuously argues before us that the order under appeal should not be allowed to stand. He argues in the first place that there has not been a proper trial of the case by the learned District Judge; he points out in particular to the Act that the record shows that the cross-examination of the first witness for the respondents was not recorded. Under the head cross- examination there is a note "nothing relevant to the issues." There would have been substance in this grievance if the learned advocate had been able to satisfy us as to the nature of the questions which were put on behalf of his client and which were disallowed or the answers whereof were not recorded by the learned Judge.