Somasundaram Pillai vs The Official Receiver

Wadsworth, J.—The petitioner was adjudged an insolvent on 6th August, 1930. He obtained an absolute order of discharge on nth

December, 1932, but his property continued in the hands of the Official Receiver for the purpose of satisfying the proved debts rateably. One

dividend was declared in March 1944, and has been substantially paid out. The second dividend is pending disbursement. The petitioner moved

the Insolvency Court u/s 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to stay the disbursement of this dividend, claiming the benefits u/s 21 of the Madras

Agriculturists'' Relief Act (IV of 1938). Section 21 says:

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the debts payable by any person who has been adjudicated an insolvent if prior to the coming into

force of this Act a dividend has been declared out of his assets.

It has been held that the words "" has been adjudicated an insolvent"" refer to an adjudication continuing at any rate up to the date of the Act. The

second part 3 of the section says

If a dividend has not been so declared, this Act shall apply to the debts payable by such person if he would have been an agriculturist within the

meaning of this Act but for his adjudication in insolvency.

Now on the facts of the present case it is conceded that the petitioner obtained an absolute discharge in 1932. Thereafter by reason of the

provisions of Section 44(2) J of the Provincial Insolvency Act, he was released from all the debts provable in that insolvency. But by reason of the

adjudication, the properties still vest in the Official Receiver who has to retain them for the purpose of satisfying the debts proved in the insolvency.

But these debts were no longer, by reason of the discharge, the debts of the insolvent. They were merely the debts of the estate vested in the

Official Receiver''s hands. Therefore, it is impossible to say that these debts proved in the insolvency were debts payable by the petitioner. If he

was seeking relief in respect of the debts incurred subsequent to his discharge and before the commencement of the Act he might be entitled to the

benefits of the Act provided that he was qualified as an agriculturist and his adjudication which had ceased to affect his status after the discharge

would not stand in his way. But that is not the relief which he seeks. He having by his discharge escaped from the liability for the debts proved in

the insolvency is now seeking to revive that liability in order that he may get those debts reduced, so as to relieve the burden upon the estate vested

in the Official Receiver in the hope of some remnant coming back to himself. That, in my opinion, he cannot do.

The revision petition is dismissed with costs.