Mithan Lal, J. - (1.) These three civil revisions, filed by firm Makund Lal Veer Kumar and Ram Surat Misra, arise out of the same order of adjudication passed by the Insolvency Judge, Varanasi, and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. Three petitions were filed, one by Purshottam opposite party on 28th April 1958 registered as case No. 9 of 1958, another by Smt. Tara Devi on 30th May 1958 registered as case No. 19 of 1958, and the third by Jivendra Mal on 20th January 1959 registered as case No. 2 of 1959, alleging that the firm and its partner Makund Lal had done certain acts of insolvency and so the firm and the partners be declared to be insolvents. It may be noted at the very outset that no act of insolvency was alleged in any of the petitions on the part of Ram Surat Misra personally. Several grounds covered by Section 6(b), (c), (d) and (g) were alleged in the petitions. The Insolvency Judge, however, found no other ground established except that covered by sub-Section (c), that is he found the gift deed executed by Makund Lal of his share in his personal property, (two houses), in favour of his son to be fraudulent. All the three petitioners were declared insolvent. On appeal the order was maintained by the Additional District Judge and so these three revisions have been filed.
(2.) Sri Raja Ram Agarwal, who has very ably argued the cases has raised three main contentions in these cases. The first is that no property of the firm was transferred and consequently there being no act of insolvency on the part of the firm the firm could not be declared to be insolvent. His second contention is that the act of insolvency, which has been upheld by the courts below, was an act prior to three months of the first petition of insolvency presented by Purshottam. While arguing the second point the learned counsel has further contended that the date of the presentation of the deed of gift executed by Makund Lal should be taken to be the date of registration because of the presumption of Section 47 of the Registration Act. It is also his contention that the registration of document being a composite act the date of presentation of the document and its acceptance by the registering officer, should be taken to be the date of registration. His last argument is that Ram Surat Misra has been wrongly declared to be insolvent because no act of insolvency is alleged against him and even if the firm is declared insolvent Ram Surat Misra personally cannot be adjudged as an insolvent.
(3.) The counsel for the opposite side, Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, has on the other hand contended that the question of transfer of property by the firm would have been material only in a case where the firm owned property. In the present case there being no property owned by the firm the act of insolvency on the part of any partner must be deemed to be an act of insolvency on the part of the firm itself. According to his submission a document can only be registered when an endorsement of a certificate of registration has been made by the Registrar on the back of the document and the mere presentation of the document does not have the effect of registration. This being within three months the courts below were right in declaring the petitioners as insolvents.;