The court affirmed that the purchase at the court auction sale was valid, and the plaintiff's assignee had the right to redeem the mortgage, based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Travancore Insolvency Act.

1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Mavelikara reversing that of the Munsiff of the same place who decreed his suit for redemption of a mortgage.

2. The facts are short. Pending execution of a decree for money the judgment-debtor was declared insolvent, and the Official receiver of the court was appointed receiver of his properties. Nevertheless, execution of the decree proceeded without obtaining the sanction of the insolvency court and without bringing the receiver on record. The properties sought to be redeemed were attached, sold in court auction subject to a possessory mortgage, purchased by the decree-holder, and satisfaction of the decree was entered protanto. The plaintiff is an assignee of the rights of the purchaser and seeks redemption of the mortgage from the defendant as transferee thereof. The insolvent defaulted to apply for his discharge as ordered by court and the adjudication was therefore annulled. There was no order vesting the property in any person for purposes of administration and discharge of the debts of the insolvent.

3. The contention urged by the default-mortgagee was that the auction sale on which the plaintiff depended as his title was void and therefore the plaintiff had no right to redeem. This plea was repelled by the Munsiff, but found favour with the District Judge on appeal. The only question in this second appeal is whether the auction sale of the property in execution of the decree against the insolvent without the leave of the insolvency court and without impleading the receiver to represent the estate is valid, the order of adjudication which then existed having been annulled afterwards without ordering the vesting of the property in any person.

4. The question falls to be determined under the Travancore Insolvency Act VIII of 1108. The provisions thereof are the same as those contained in the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The 2nd clause of the 28th section provides that:

"On the making of an order of adjudication the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a receiver as here-in-after provided, and shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter except as provided by this Act, no creditors to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall, during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt or commence any suit or other legal proceedings, except with the leave of the court on such terms as the court may impose".

The first clause of the forty-third section enacts:

“The debtor does not appear on the day fixed for hearing his application for discharge or on such subsequent day as the court may direct, of if the debtor does not apply for an order of discharge within the period specified by the court, (the Court may annul the order of adjudication or make such other order as it may think fit, and if the adjudication is so annulled, the provisions of S. 37 shall apply)".

and the first clause of the thirty-seventh section reads as follows:

"Where an adjudication is annulled all sales and dispositions of property and payments duly made and all acts therefore done by the Court or Receiver, shall be valid, but subject as aforesaid, the property of the debtor who was adjudged insolvent shall vest in such person as the Court may appoint, or in default of any such appointment, shall revert to the debtor to the extent of his right or interest therein on such conditions (if any) as the court may by order in writing declare".

The contention of the defendant-respondent is that the consequence of the prohibition against conduct of proceedings against the insolvent or his property during the pendency of the insolvency without the sanction of the insolvency Court and without the receiver on record, is to render such proceedings altogether null and void. The next step in the argument is that if they are