- (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 the Act.
(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.;