Jackson, J.

1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that a mortgage deed is valid. He is transferee of the mortgagee, defendant 10.

2. The mortgagors defendants 1 to 3, wore declared insolvent on a creditors petition. The alleged act of insolvency was the fraudulent execution of this very mortgage and it was prayed that the alienation be declared void: I.P. No. 53 of 1918, p. 2 of documents.

3. Defendant 10 got notice of this petition and remained ex parte (para. 6 of order, p. 5 of documents). The Judge in his "order" found that there was no opposition to the petition to adjudicate the debtors insolvent, declared the alienation void and vested the assets in the Official Receiver: para. 7. It will be noted that this "order" does not in terms adjudicate the debtor an insolvent. But on the same date an order of adjudication was also issued: p. 3 of documents. More than that a Court is not required to do Under Section 27, Act 5 of 1920 and it is difficult to say if the "order" is more than obiter.

4. A similar order by the same Judge was under consideration in Appireddi v. Appireddi A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 246, where it is held, following Hemraj Champa Lal v. Ram Kishen Ram [1917] 2 Pat.