Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. On the 22nd January, 1935, P.L.S.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar, the second respondent, was adjudicated an insovlentonthe petition of K.M.V.R. Chidambaram Chettiar, the first respondent, by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah. The adjudication was based on a. transfer of immovable property dated the 23rd February, 1934, which was said to constitute a fraudulent preference. The petition for adjudication was filed on the 3rd of July, 1934, that is, more than three months after the transaction. Therefore the transaction, even if it constituted a fraudulent preference could not be made the basis of an insolvency petition by reason of Section 9 (1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The reason given for filing the petition beyond three months was that the Court was closed for the summer vacation and it was not possible to file it before the 3rd July, 1934, but the fact the Court was closed made no difference, as a Full Bench of this Court has pointed out Chenchuramana v. Arunachalam (1935)69MLJ283 That was a case where the petition was filed on the 29th June, 1931, the re-opening day after the Courts vacation and the act of insolvency was a deed of