ODDIREDDY VENKATA REDDY Vs. MALLELA RAMASWAMI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ODDIREDDY VENKATA REDDY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The revision arises out of a proceeding before the Insolvency Court
the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur-for annulment of the adjudication
of one Mallela Chinnakka, a widow, ordered in I.P. 35 of 1957 on 18th November, 1957.
The petitioner before the Insolvency Court was the said Chinnakka's
husband's brother's son, Mallela Ramaswami, in whose favour Chinnakka had
executed a gift-deed, Exhibit A-1, dated 22nd January, 1957, covering her properties.
Chinnakka was adjudicated as an insolvent on a creditor's petition presented on
18th September, 1957 alleging an act of insolvency on her part in her having alienated
her properties under Exhibit A-7, dated 2nd September, 1957, in favour of her
brother Chinna Narasappa.
(2.) After adjudication, the Official Receiver applied under section 53 of the Provincial
Insolvency Act, 1920 (Act No. V of 1920) for annulment of the gift-deed in
favour of Mallela Ramaswami, Exhibit A-1, and that was done in O.P. 59 of 1960
by an order, dated 21st July, 1961. The said order is said to be pending appeal.
Meanwhile, the said Mallela Ramaswami applied under section 35 of the Provincial
Insolvency Act for annulment of the order of adjudication alleging inter alia that there
was no act of insolvency on the part of Chinnakka. The petition was opposed on
the ground that Mallela Ramaswami was not competent to present the petition as
a person interested within the meaning of section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act,
the plea taken being that the gift-deed in favour of Mallela Ramaswami was a sham
and nominal document, and that as such he could not be a person interested within
the meaning of the said provision. The learned Subordinate Judge,|sitting as an
Insolvency Court, rejected the application, accepting the plea that Exhibit A-1 executed
in favour of Mallela Ramaswami was a fictitious document and that he could not be
a person interested who was competent to make an application under section 35 of
(3.) The order of the learned Subordinate Judge was carried in appeal to the
District Court. The learned District Judge found that there was no act of insolvency and
further that Mallela Ramaswamy was a person interested and was competent to make
the application. He observed that it was not necessary for him
to go into the question whether Exhibit A-1 was a fictitious, sham and nominal
transaction as pleaded by the petitioning creditors. This aspect of the case has
been dealt with by him in para. 4 of his judgment. Though the language is not
quite happy, I have no doubt that he did not go into that question in view of the
annulment of Exhibit A-1 ordered in O.P. 59 of 1960.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.