The date of transfer of property for the purpose of determining whether an act of insolvency has been committed under the Provincial Insolvency Act is the date of registration of the transfer.

( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application filed by the creditor (petitioner herein) for adjudicating the 2nd respondent herein as an insolvent. The 1st respondent herein is a purchaser of the entire properties belonging to the insolvent under a registered sale daed dated 27th December, 194. 9 for rs. 22,500. The alienation was alleged as constituting an act of insolvency. The Subordinate Judge of Vijayawada adjudicated him as an insolvent; but on appeal the District Judge of Krishna at Masulipatnam reversed the judgment and dismissed the petitioner s application. The Civil Revision Petition is consequently filed against the order of the District Judge.

( 2 ) THE questions that arise for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition are (i) Whether the petitioner is a creditor entitled to file the application for adjudicating the 2nd respondent as an insolvent ? (ii) Whether the act of insolvency occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition ? (iii) Whether the 2nd respondent has committed an act of insolvency?

( 3 ) ON the first question, both the Courts held that the petitioner was entitled to file the application. The petitioner obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent on a promissory note endorsed in his favour by Macha Yellamandayya. The petitioner being the holder of a negotiable instrument in respect of which he obtained a decree is a creditor within the meaning of the Act, though the promissory. note was endorsed in. his favour for collection. No authority was cited in support of the proposition that an endorsee for collection has no locus standi to present the petition as a creditor.

( 4 ) THE sale deed in favour of the ist respondent was executed on 27th December, 1949. It was presented for registration on 28th December, 1949 and the document was actually registered on 19th January, 1950. The application was filed more than three months from a8th December, 1949 but within three months from 19th January, 1950. The question that arises is, when was the act of insolvency committed- on the date of registration or on the date of presentation before the sub- registrar. Section 6 of the Provincial Insolvency Act defints acts of insolvency. Clause (a) refers to a transfer of all or substantially all his property to a third person for the benefit, of his creditors generally. Clause (b) deals with a transfer of the debtor s property or any part thereof with intent to defeat or delay his creditors. Section 9 (1) (c) provides that the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded should have occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition. Section 47 of the Registration Act enacts that once a document is registered, the effect begins to commence from the date of execution. On the strength of section 47 of the Registration Act it was contended in venkatadri Somappa v. Official Receiver of Bellary, (1938) 2 M. L. J. 362. that the date of transfer challenged under section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency act, was the date of its execution and not the date of registration of the document.

( 5 ) IT was held that as the transfer was not effective till the document was registered, the date of registration should be regarded as the date of transfer. The conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench is at page 367 and is in tht following terms :"after mature consideration we have come to the conclusion that the date of the transfer is the date of registration and that for the purpose of this section (section 54) the transfer cannot he ante-dated by the operation of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act. "following this decision hold that the date of registration should be regarded as the date of transfer.

( 6 ) THE next question is, whether the date of presentation of the document for registration should be regarded as the date of transfer as contended by sri G. Venkataramasastry, the learned advocate for the respondent. His argument was mainly based on the provisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document