Once a transfer has been found to be an act of insolvency and the adjudication is based on that transfer, the Official Assignee is entitled to have the order annulling the transfer on proof of adjudication itself, without anything more.

ISMAIL J. :- This is an appeal against the order of Ramaprasada Rao J. dated 8-7-1977 and made in Appn. No. 355 of 1977 in I. P. No. 31 of 1967. One R. A. Khaleel was adjudged insolvent by an order of this court dated 23-12-1970 in I. P. No. 31 of 1967 filed by two creditors of the said R. A. Khaleel. The act of insolvency alleged was that on 9-3-1967, the said Khaleel conveyed 12-89 acres of lands to the appellant herein, with intent to defeat and delay the creditors, for a grossly low sum of Rs. 43000. The appellant herein, who is the transferee, was also impleaded as a party to the main petition, namely, the second respondent. Ganesan J., who disposed of the insolvency petition came to the conclusion that the debtor had committed an act of insolvency, within the scope of S. 9 (b) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, namely, ' A debtor commits an act of insolvency, if, in (the States) or elsewhere, he makes a transfer of his property or of any part thereof with intent to defeat or delay his creditors.' The learned Judge, after elaborately considering the evidence, recorded the following findings-

(1) On a fair consideration of the entire evidence, he had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the lands had been deliberately undervalued and sold for an inordinately low price.

(2) The lands in question were worth not less than Rs. 70000 on the date of the sale and to that must be added a sum of not less than Rs. 7000 for the value of the crops standing on the land.

(3) The appellant herein entered into this transaction with a view to help the debtor out of his financial difficulties and to screen his only property from the reach of his creditors.

(4) The transfer should have been made for an extra consideration of not less than Rs. 25000 and the document was conveniently registered at Madras presumably with a view to screen the transaction from the knowledge of the creditors.

(5) The transaction in question, though registered, had been brought about secretly and collusively by the debtor with the appellant and others with intent to defeat and delay the second petitioner in the main petition and other creditors. Against this order of adjudication, the appellant herein filed O. S. A. 6 of 1971 before this court and the said appeal came to be disposed of by Kailasam C. J. and Ramanujam J. by judgment dated 26-7-1976. The learned Judges held that on the materials it was not possible for them to take a different view from the one taken by Ganesan J. that they were inclined to agree with the learned Judge that there was considerable material to show that the price mentioned in the sale deed could not represent the fair or market price of the property sold thereunder and that once it was found that the property had been undervalued, it would lead to an inference that the debtor intended to defeat or delay payment to the creditors by entering into that bargain. Thereafter the learned Judges stated as follows -

" Learned counsel for the appellant would, however, contend that, even though the debtor might have had an intention to defeat or delay payment to the creditors no such intention has been attributed to the appellant and that therefore the transaction in his favour cannot be avoided. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Subramania Iyer v. Official Receiver AIR 1958 SC 1, in support of his submission that, unless the transferee is found to have colluded with the debtor, the transaction in his favour cannot be held to be void under S. 55 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. We are, however, concerned in this appeal only with the question whether the transaction entered into by the debtor with the appellant is an act of insolvency or not, and not, with the question whether the transaction would fall under S. 55 or not. It is sufficient for our purpose to deal with the question whether the transaction between the debtor and the appellant amounts to an act of insolve