RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against four (4) separate orders, of even date, i.e., 14.11.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in Application No.55 of 2010, Application No.88 of 2010, Application No.89 of 2010 and Application No.90 of 2010.

1.1. The appellant, claims to be a third party, bona fide purchaser of an immovable property, situate at Plot No.66, Pillayar Koil Street, Golden George Nagar, Nerkundram, Chennai - 600 107 (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’).

1.2. Respondent No.1, Mr. D. Rajkumar, had held title, in the subject property, prior to his declaration, as an insolvent. It is this declaration of respondent No.1, as an insolvent, which, affects the interest of the appellant. The appellant, faced with this hurdle, chose to file the aforementioned applications. It is, therefore, the dismissal of the appellant’s applications, by the learned Single Judge, which has propelled him to file the captioned appeals.

1.3. It is, important to note, that, the learned Single Judge dismissed Application No.55 of 2010, on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the order dated 06.06.2006, whereby, respondent No.1, was declared an insolvent.

1.4. The necessary consequences of the dismissal of Application No.55 of 2010, was that, other three (3) applications, were dismissed by the learned Single Judge as well, albeit, in limine.

1.5. The appellant, thus, assails the impugned orders, essentially, on the ground that conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge that he had no locus, in the matter, was flawed.

2. The factual background, in which, these assertions are made is set out hereinafter.

2.1. Respondent No.1, i.e., Mr. D. Rajkumar, moved, for being declared an insolvent, by filing a petition, on 12.05.2006. The subject property was sold by respondent No.1 to the appellant on 18.05.2006. Respondent No.1 was declared an insolvent, as indicated above, after adjudication, on 06.06.2006.

2.2. The Official Assignee filed an application, i.e., Application No.95 of 2009 for annulling the sale effected, between the appellant and respondent No.1, on 18.05.2006.

2.3. We are told, that the Official Assignee’s application, i.e., Application No.95 of 2009 is still pending adjudication.

4. Since, the appellant’s applications qua which the impugned orders have been passed, came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, they were heard and dealt with via the impugned orders.

5. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, in support of the appeals, submits that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are erroneous in law, in as much as the appellant, who claims to be the bona fide purchaser of the subject property, had the necessary locus to challenge the adjudication order.

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, since, the sale of the subject property took place before the order of adjudication was passed, he would come within the ambit of Section 57 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (in short, ‘the 1909 Act’).

5.2. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel relies upon Section 21 of the 1909 Act, as well. Based on the said provision, learned Senior Counsel submitted that any person, who is aggrieved, could move the Court for setting aside the adjudication order. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in: Sankarram & Co. Vs. Kasi Naicker and others, (2003) 11 SCC 699. Reliance was also placed by the Counsel on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Govindaraja Gounder (died) and others V. Rani, 78 L.W. 715.

6. Ms. B. Meena, Official Assignee and Mr. M. Vasantha Kumar, Deputy Official Assignee, submit that the subject sale transaction which was entered into between the appellant and respondent No.1 was fraudulent. In this behalf, it was contended that the purported sale consideration of the subject property was Rs.17,16,000/-, whereas, at