Chandra Reddy, C.J.-

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Venkataraman, J., adjudicating the appellant an insolvent.

The material facts may be briefly stated. One Narayanan Chettiar obtained a decree against the appellant in C.S. No. 235 of 1955. In execution of hat decree, he attached the house of the appellant situate in Alwarpet, on 10th July, 1962, and it remained in force for over twenty one days. Basing himself on this attachment: this Narayanan Chettiar presented the petition giving rise to this appeal.

The petitioning creditor invoked section 9 (a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act alleging that the debtor committed an act of insolvency by reason of the property remaining under attachment for over twenty-one days. Incidentally it may be mentioned here that he withdrew from the petition subsequently; and, a number of creditors, one after another, came on the scene for proceeding with this petition. Most of them went out of the picture on receipt of some payment, from the appellant. Finally, respondents 1 to 3 who came on record at a later stage prosecuted the petition.

This petition was opposed by the appellant on the ground that he had not committed any act of insolvency as the property attached did not belong to him by reason of it having been already sold in a revenue sale. Overruling this opposition the learned Judge accepted the petition for adjudication.

Before dealing with the question whether any property of the appellant was under attachment for more than twenty-one days so as to attract section 9 (e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, in the light of the relevant statutory provisions, a few facts bearing on the revenue sale may be narrated here.

For arrears of sales tax due from the appellant the property under appeal was put up for sale on 5th March, 1962 and was purchased by the Picture Financiers, a partnership firm, for Rs. 50,100 subject to a mortgage existing on the property amounting to nearly rupees three lakhs. The purchaser paid fifteen per cent, of the bid amount immediately and the balance was deposited within thirty days as required under the terms of the conditions of sale and the relevant statutory provisions. On 3rd April, 1962, the appellant impeached the validity of the sale in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court alleging certain irregularities in the conduct of the sale. This petition was dismissed by Srinivasan, J., in the view that the sale was not vitiated by any irregularity or illegality.

On these facts could it be asserted that the property of the appellant was attached for more than twenty-one days within the connotation of section 9(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act ? The answer to this depends upon the proper interpretation of the provisions of the Madras City Land Revenue (Amendment) Act read with section 9(e) and (2)(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.

We will first read section 9(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, omitting the unnecessary portions.

“9. A debtor commits an act of insolvency in each of the following, cases, namely: —

.....................................

(e) if any of his property has been sold or attached for a period of not less than twenty-one days in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money.”

“Property” has been defined in section 2 (e) of that Act: that is

“Property includes any property over which or the profits of which any person has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit.”

Can it be posited that the appellant had a disposing power over this property within the meaning of section 2(e) of this Act? To answer this question we have to look at the relevant sections of the Madras City Land Revenue (Amendment) Act in so far as it is of immediate relevancy to this enquiry.

“ Section 18.-In the sale of immovable property under this Act, the following rules shall be observed:-

Third..........A sum of money equal to fifteen per cent, of the price of the lands

Click Here to Read the rest of this document