SARANGAPANI CHETTY Vs. PERUMAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the appellant before venkatadri J. in A. A. O. No. 332 of 1961. As the learned Judge himself states, the proceeding involves a question of some interest, wherever a particular ground of the insolvency enacted in Sec. 6 sub-sec. (d) (ii) and (iii) of the Provincial insolvency Act, can be availed of by the sole creditor of the alleged insolvent. For the purpose of this argument which is the single ground involved in the appeal, the Following facts will be sufficient.

(2.) THE respondent (creditor) has a decree against the appellant in O. S. 153 of 1958 District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. The respondent attempted to realise the decree amount by means of four separate execution petitions but was unsuccessful. According to the respondent, the insolvent (appellant) departed from his dwelling house and usual place of business, and so secluded himself, that the repeated attempts at executing the decree failed. Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under S. 9 for adjudication of the appellant as an insolvent, relying on the grounds of S. 6 sub-sec. (d) (ii) and (iii) of the Act.

(3.) WE may take it that, on the facts, the courts have consistently held that the insolvent (appellant) deliberately went away from his dwelling house and usual place of business, and secluded himself, with the intention of defeating and delaying this creditor, and preventing an execution of the decree. The only point is whether, because there is only on creditor of the insolvent, the ground is not available, and the creditor is without redress in the matter of obtaining the adjudication of his debtor as insolvent.