Ahmad, J.

1. These two miscellaneous appeals arise from a common insolvency proceeding against two insolvents, Pawananjai Kumar Jain and his son Raj Kumar Jain, and are directed against a common order, dated 12-4-1954, passed by the insolvency court at Arrah whereby it has under Sec. 53, Provincial insolvency Act annulled two deeds of gift dated 1-7-1939 and 5-5-1939 both executed by the common insolvent Pawananjai Kumar Jain, the former covering all his properties that were still owned and possessed by him on that date in favour of his sister Kanak Sunder Bibi and the latter, which is prior in date, covering only the zamindari interest in one village bearing touzi No. 6215 in favour of his mistress Janki Kaharin, who subsequently sold that property by a registered deed of sale dated 9-9-1949, for a sum of Rs. 3800.00 to one Hardeo Pandey in the name of his minor son Ramdeo Pandey.

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 133 of 1954 is on behalf of the donee Kanak Sunder Bibi and the other miscellaneous appeal is on behalf of the purchaser from the other donee Janki Kaharin. There is also a cross-objection in Appeal No. 133 of 1954 on behalf of the other insolvent Raj Kumar Jain praying therein that the deed of gift dated 1-7-1939, in favour of .Kanak Sunder Bibi should not only have Been annulled under Sec. 53 but should have been held to be sham and void transaction under Sec. 4, Provincial Insolvency Act.

2. The application for insolvency of the two insolvents was originally filed on 2-1-1940 by two of the creditors of Pawananjai Kumar Jain, namely, (1) Nirmal Kumar Jain and his brother, and on that application both the father and the son Pawananjai Kumar Jain and Raj Kumar Jain were adjudged insolvent on 18-6-1941. In the meantime, by the order of the High Court dated 22-4-1940, Mr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, Pleader, had been appointed as an ad interim receiver on 29-4-1940. This receiver after the adjudication on 1-8-1941, applied for the annulment of the aforesaid two deeds under Sec. 53, Insolvency Act and also for an adjudication under Sec. 4 of that Act that the two deeds of gift were void. So far as the application for the annulment of the gift in favour of Janki Kaharin was concerned, it appears from the judgment of the court below that it was not contested at any stage in the insolvency court either by the donee or by the purchaser from her.

It was the application regarding the other gift alone that was contested and that by Kanak Sunder Bibi. Her contentions made at the time of the hearing in support of her opposition were, amongst others: (1) That the gift made on 1-7-1939 was not a sham transaction. It was accepted by her and was given effect to and that the application under Sec. 4, Insolvency Act was not applicable to the facts of this case.

(2) That the transfer made in her favour was bona fide and in making that transfer the transferor Pawananjai Kumar Jain did neither conceal the debts standing against him nor she, the donee, was ever reluctant to pay all the debts standing against Pawananjai Kumar Jain. On the contrary, she had been all along anxious to make arrangement for the payment of his" debts.

(3) That the gift in her favour was for valuable consideration and in lieu of that she had accepted the onerous responsibility to pay all the debts of Pawananjai Kumar Jain and to maintain him till his life time.

(4) That the death of Pawananjai Kumar Jain should have by itself operated as his discharge and the insolvency proceeding should have automatically terminated.

(5) That the transfer made in her favour having been incorporated by that time into a decree on the basis of an award, the only course that was left open thereafter for the receiver to follow to challenge the gift was to institute a properly constituted suit and that in no case in law it could be avoided under Sec. 53, Insolvency Act.

3. The court on hearing the parties has annulled both the deeds of gift under Section 53, Insolvency Act, but refused to cons