The main legal point established is that the court has the authority to declare transfers as fictitious under the Provincial Insolvency Act and clarify the jurisdictional aspects of creditor-initiated proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant Garibia Bibi purchased certain properties from one Hanif Mian, who had in turn purchased them from one Oli Mahammad, who was adjudicated insolvent after the date of Hanif's purchase and before that of Garibia Bibi. On an application by a creditor, one Mathura Prosad Rajgharia, u/s 53 read with Section 54A. and also u/s 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, the learned District Judge of 24-Parganas has found that both the alleged transfers were fictitious and has ordered that Oli Mahammad had right, title and interest in the disputed property which on his adjudication vested in the Official Receiver. The appellant contests this decision. The creditor Mathura Prosad Rajgharia has appeared in the appeal through his advocate who states that he does not contest it. The appeal has been contested by the Official Receiver. For the appellant, it is contended first, that the findings 6f fact of the learned Judge are wrong; secondly, that in so far as the application is one u/s 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, it cannot be maintained at the instance of a creditor, and that hence the proceedings are without jurisdiction; and thirdly, that in any case the order is incorrect in so far as it deals with the position of the two minor sons of Oli Mahammad.

2. The material facts of the case are that the applicant creditor Mathura Prosad Rajgharia was landlord of Oli Mahammad in respect of land at 1 Bahir Sura Road, Belia-ghatta, on which were situated some 34 huts and had obtained rent decrees against him. In proceedings in execution, he obtained a writ of arrest against his debtor on 20th November 193G. The kobala to Hanif, which is challenged in these proceedings, was executed on the next day, 21st November, by Oli Mahammad for himself, and as guardian of his two minor sons for a consideration of Rs. 2000. Ex. c is the document. It is recited in the kobala that the huts on the land had been erected at the cost of Oli Mahammad with his own money, but both the huts and the right of tenancy were transferred. It should be noted that the lease for the premises was in favour of the minor sons along with the father. Oli Mahammad was brought up on arrest on 25th November, and made his application in insolvency on 14th December following. The total debts are recited at Rs. 34,244-5-9, out of which Rs. 1240 represents the landlord's dues, and Rs. 30,385 the dower dues of his two wives. Oli Mahammad was adjudicated insolvent on 22nd March 1937. Just prior to this, on 11th March, Hanif mortgaged the huts in question to one Nur Muhammad for Rs. 500 by the document, Ex. A, and subsequently, after the adjudication, on 17th July, he purported to transfer the properties to the appellant, Garibia Bibi by the document Ex. B, the consideration being stated to be Rs. 3000, made up of earnest money Rs. 500, of a sum of Rs. 460 retained by the vendee for paying off Nur Muhammad's mortgage, the balance being alleged to be paid in cash.

3. On 24th August, the creditor Mathura Prosad Rajgharia for himself and his sons filed a petition alleging that Hanif kobala was a fraudulent benami document of the most valuable property of the debtor consisting of 34 rooms, without any consideration and created for the purpose of defrauding creditors; that he had applied to the Official Receiver to start proceedings to annul the sale, but the Official Receiver had not submitted any report, and praying that the Court would "give the start of the said proceedings to annul the sale ..." On 30th August, the Official Receiver submitted his report saying that he had asked the creditors to supply him with documents and evidence, and Rs. 300 to meet incidental expenses of the proceedings, but that as the creditors had not done so, he had advised them to take proceedings u/s 54A of the Act. He declined to take the responsibility of taking steps to annul the documents, and repeated that the creditors might take action u/s 54A of the Act on their own responsibility. The Official Re