1. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court as well as the appellate court adjudging the assignor of the appellants as insolvent, thereby affecting their assignments, the assignees have come up in appeal. They are counter petitioners 2 to 5 before the court below.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The facts and parties are referred to as they are available before the trial court. The petitioners invoked Section 9 of the Insolvency Act to have the first counter petitioner adjudged as insolvent. According to them, the first counter petitioner was indebted to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.1,1 5,000/- to the second petitioner. According to them, in order to defeat or delay them, the first counter petitioner assigned his properties by way of two documents bearing Nos.1400 and 1402 of 1998 in favour of respondents 2 to 4. They pointed out that that act of assignment was within the stipulated period under the statute. The consideration shown in the documents was meager and that the property was registered in a different Sub-Registry office. It is also alleged that the debtor had made himself scarce and these acts of the debtor made the petitioners to file the petition to adjudge the first counter petitioner as insolvent.

3. The debtor remained ex-parte. The assignees from him, namely, counter petitioners 2 to 4 contested the proceedings. They pointed out that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and they were unaware of the debt due to the petitioners. They also pointed out that after their purchase, they came to know about certain debts due from their assignor which they discharged, the details of which are given in the objection. The contended that they have no notice of the debts due to the petitioners and they are not liable for that. They therefore prayed for a dismissal of the petition.

4. The trial court after raising the issue whether the petition is maintainable or not, let the parties to adduce evidence. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts. Al to A8 from the side of the petitioners. The counter petitioners had CPW1 examined and had Exts. Bl to B21 marked. After appreciating the evidence on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the petition is maintainable and the act of insolvency has primarily been established and adjudged the first respondent as insolvent as contemplated under Section 27 of the Kerala Insolvency Act.

5. The aggrieved assignees carried the matter in appeal as A.S.177 of 2001. The lower appellate court after adverting to the various provisions of the Act came to the conclusion that no detailed enquiry is warranted or that any specific nature of enquiry is warranted at the time of adjudication under Section 27 of the Act and the enquiry comes at a later stage. Being satisfied that there were acts of insolvency committed by the first counter petitioner, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the trial court. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following questions of law were raised:

i. Whether the courts below are justified in adjudging the 1st CP as insolvent in the absence of specific plea that the 1st CP has no other assets to satisfy the alleged debt amount?

ii. Whether the courts below are legally correct in adjudging the 1st CP as insolvent on a petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 whose alleged claim is not a liquidated sum?”

6. Shri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the courts below have erred both on facts and in law in entering a finding under Section 27 of the Kerala Insolvency Act. There are no pleadings in the petition to the effect that the debtor did not have assets left with him after the assignment in favour of respondents 2 to 4 which could not be made use of to pay the debts due to the petitioners in the insolvency petition. Unless such an aver