JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge, sitting in insolvency, declaring invalid a transaction by which the insolvent transferred to one Bhagwan Das, a banker, his interest in a payment warrant due to the insolvent from the Divisional Distributing Officer for the month of June in respect of the transport services rendered by motor ears by the insolvent. The transaction has been declared invalid as a fraudulent preference u/s 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The only point decided by the District Judge was whether a new creditor, who only became a creditor in respect of the transaction which gave rise to the question as to whether it was a fraudulent preference, can be a creditor within the meaning of Section 54. We agree with the District Judge that he could be a creditor within the meaning of that section, as for example, where a transaction consists of two independent parts, firstly, the consideration passing to the debtor, thereby creating a debt from the debtor to the creditor, and the second part where the debtor independently and voluntarily makes a transfer in respect of the debt. We think, however, that it is not possible to take that view of t