John A. David vs A.L.A. Alagappa Chettiar and Others

Pandrang Row, J.—This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura, dated March 12, 1929, in appeal from the

order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad, dated February 23, 1925, on an application filed by the Official Receiver and one of the creditors of

the insolvents in I.P. No. 6 of 1913 for declaring as void certain deeds of transfer executed by the insolvents. The Subordinate Judge declared the

transfers to be void u/s 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, so far as the insolvents'' shares in the properties were concerned. On appeal the District

Judge came to the conclusion that they were not voidable and that they had not been shown to be fraudulent preferences, and that on the other

hand, even assuming that Section 53 applied, they were made bona fide for valuable consideration. One preliminary objection raised to this appeal

is that it is not competent as no appeal lies from the appellate order passed by the District Court u/s 75, Provincial Insolvency Act. The point is

covered by authority: vide, Alagiri Subba Naick v. ''""Official Receiver, Tivnevelly 132 Ind. Cas. 641 : AIR 1931 Mad. 745 : 54 M 989; Ind.Rul.

(1931) Mad. 673 : 34 L.W. 105 : 61 M.L.J. 820. It is obvious that to a petition to set aside or declare as void a deed of transfer made by an

insolvent u/s 53 or Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, Section 4 of the Act has no application. The right of appeal is strictly limited by the

provisions of Section 75 of the Act and it is clear on the point that there can be no appeal from a decision of the District Judge passed in an appeal

from a decision of a Subordinate Court, unless the latter is one u/s 4 of the Act. The preliminary objection must, therefore, prevail and the appeal

pronounced to be incompetent. I have been asked during the hearing by the appellant''s Advocate to treat this appeal as a revision petition, but I

see no sufficient reason to grant the request because the question that arises for determination is a question of fact which has been decided by the

District Judge in appeal. There is nothing in the order of the District Judge to show that he did not apply the law on the subject correctly to the

facts of the case before him, and such being the case, there can be no justification for interference in revision. The appeal is accordingly dismissed

with costs.