Pandrang Row, J.

1. The appellant in this second appeal and the petitioner in the Revision Petition are one and the same, the appeal and Revision Petition being alternative remedies pursued for the same purpose, namely, of getting the order of the District Judge of Vellore in C.M.A. No. 65 of 1934 set aside. That was an appeal from an order passed in an application by the creditor of an insolvent for the assignment of a policy of insurance taken out by the insolvent in his favour. The second respondent in the petition was the Life Insurance Company and the third respondent was the wife of the insolvent debtor. The only question that had to be decided by the Courts below was whether the life policy in question, Ex. I, contains a trust for the benefit of the wife, the third respondent. The verba ipsissima "the policy is for the benefit of the wife" are not to be found in the policy, but it is stated therein that the amount clue on the policy should be paid to the assured, that is, to the first respondent at the expiry of the period of 15 years, or to his wife on the death of the assured if earlier. In these circumstances, the Subordinate Judge was of opinion that there was no