The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal on I. A. No. III was not maintainable, and the court upheld the validity of the assignments in favor of respondents 1 and 2, allowing them to prove their debts as the insolvency proceedings were not yet terminated.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the appellant-petitioner against the orders of the learned Third Additional District Judge, bangalore, on I. As. Nos. III, IV, V and VIII in Insolvency Case no. 11 of 1932-33 dismissing I. A. No. III and allowing the other three applications.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in Ins. 11 of 32-33 was one Putta narasimhanna. He died on 22-10-36 and his wife, the present appellant, was brought on record as his legal representative to continue the insolvency proceedings at her own request. She filed I. A. No. III in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, praying that the order of adjudication passed in favour of her deceased husband might be annulled. She urged various grounds in this behalf, but the then learned District Judge dismissed that petition on 14-11-1949. This order was taken in appeal in R. A. 67 of 50-51 on the file of this Court, and the appeal was dismissed on 11-1-52. Though I. A. No. III was thus disposed of finally, the petitioner re-agitated the matter before the Third Additional district Judge and he also rejected the application as not maintainable. A portion of this appeal relates to that order.

( 3 ) WE are of opinion that the appeal, so far as the order on i. A. No. III is concerned, is not maintainable inasmuch as I. A. No. IIi was finally disposed of by this Court on 11-1-1952 in r. A. 67 of 50-51. In view of that order, it was not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the matter before the lower Court. No fresh order on I. A. No. III was necessary and the order of the learned District Judge that the application was not maintainable and that therefore, it was rejected, may be taken merely as a repetition of the previous order of the then learned District Judge which culminated in the order in R. A. 67 of 50-51: Under these circumstances, we hold that the appeal, so far as the order on i. A. No. III is concerned, is not competent and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) I As. Nos. IV and V are two applications filed by the 1st respondent Chickavenkatappa. He claims to be the assignee for consideration of a portion of the decree passed in O. S. 57 of 30-31 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, under ext. I, the assignment deed, from A. Gopalakrishanappa, one of the joint decree holders in that suit. I. A. No. IV is filed by him praying that he may be brought on record as assignee of the decree and that the assignment in his favour may be recognized. He has filed I. A. No. V praying that he may be permitted to prove his debt referred to in the affidavit filed along with it.

( 5 ) I. A. NO. VIII is filed by the 2nd respondent, Shampur papanna, who claims to be the assignee of another portion of the decree passed in O. S. 57 of 1930-31 under Ext. II from A. Krishna rao, one of the joint decree holders in that case. He prays that his assignment may be recognized and that he be allowed to prove his debt. The petitioner opposed these applications on various grounds and her objections were ultimately overruled by the learned Judge who held that the assignments in favour of respondents 1 and 2 under Exts. I and II respectively were true and valid and that they were entitled to prove their debts. He accordingly allowed i. As. No. IV, V and VIII and dismissed I. A. No. III. As stated already, the present appeal is directed against those orders.

( 6 ) WE have held that the appeal, in so far it relates to the order on I. A. No. III is concerned, is not competent. The other point that remains for consideration is whether there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Judge on I. As. No. IV, V and VIII. We are of opinion that the said orders are. correct and have to be upheld. The learned District judge has found that the assignments in favour of respondent 1 and 2 are true and supported by consideration. We find no grounds to differ from those findings. Gopalakrishnappa's interest in the decree in O. S. 57 of 1930-