The main legal point established in the judgment is that an adjudication based on an act of insolvency that occurred beyond the time limit set by the Provincial Insolvency Act is without jurisdiction and can be annulled.

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 sale said to have Been executed fraudulently on the 28th February, 1931. The Court considered that the period of three months fixed by Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act was not a period of limitation, but constituted a condition to an adjudication and consequently where the alleged act of insolvency had taken place more than three months prior to the presentation of the petition it could not be set up as a ground for adjudication.

2. Before the second respondent was adjudicated by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah, an adjudication order had been passed against him by the District Court of Tharawady in Burma and his estate in Burma was being administered in insolvency by that Court. On the 7th November, 1935, the present petitioner applied to the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah for an order cancelling the adjudication. The application was made under Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act which provides that where, in the opinion of the Court, a debtor ought not to have been adjudged insolvent, or where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the debts of the insolvent have been paid in full, the Court shall, on the application of the debtor, or of any other person interested, by order in writing, annul the adjudication. The petitioner is a creditor and his object in seeking the annulment of the adjudication by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah was to ensure that the proceedings in Burma should not be interfered with. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the application and annulled the adjudication in view of the decision in Chenchuramana v. Arunachalam (1935)69MLJ283 . From that order there was an appeal to the District Judge who considered that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in annulling the adjudication, his reason being that the order adjudicating the insolvent might have been wrong, and was wrong in the light of Chenchuramana v. Arunachalam (1935)69MLJ283 , but there was no appeal and, therefore, it ought not to be disturbed. Accordingly he reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge. The order of the District Judge now comes before us on an application for revision.

3. In the first instance the application came before Burn, J., but it was placed before a Bench because the learned Judge was doubtful whether Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act gave authority to a Judge sitting in insolvency to revise, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, his own order or an order of a predecessor adjudicating a person insolvent. If on the materials before the Court at the time the order of adjudication was passed it is clear that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order, Section 35 clearly empowers the Court to annul the adjudication. It is true that the Provincial Insolvency Act does not confer upon the Court th