- (1.) The revision is filed against the judgment dated 29.12.2004 in AS No. 183 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, whereunder the application to declare the respondent as insolvent was dismissed and the appeal also confirmed the said order.
(2.) Originally Insolvency Petition was filed in IP No.2 of 2001 by the petitioners herein, who are the creditors to declare that the 1st respondent has borrowed several amounts from the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 4 are the wife and children of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent borrowed the money for the benefit of the family and with a dishonest intention and with an ulterior motive to defeat or delay the genuine creditors, alienated the schedule property in favour of the 5th respondent. As can be seen from the allegations in the petition, the petitioners formed into a committee just before the alienation and held a meeting on 5.11.2000 and the first item was to be purchased by the 5th respondent at a consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- with a promise to clear the debts of the petitioners but the property was sold for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- only and a collusive transaction was entered into and the 1st respondent received a consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and thereby committed an act of insolvency. The 1st respondent also filed IP No.27 of 2000. The 1st respondent filed a counter disputing all the allegations in the petition and contending that there is no collusion of fraud. According to him, he was indebted to Unikili Cooperative Society and for the discharge of the mortgage debt to the said society, the land was sold to the 5th respondent and there is no fraud in the alienation.
(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 denied the allegations. THE 5th respondent filed a counter contending that the alleged borrowing from the petitioners is not true and he has purchased the property for valuable consideration and for the discharge of the debts due by the 1st respondent and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge found that the petitioners are aware of the sale transaction and there is no proof that the property is more valuable.;