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 the facts in this case, because our view is that the transaction which resulted in this transfer was one complete transaction in itself, but the case raises other questions which are not considered in the judgment under appeal and the real question before us is, whether this transaction under the circumstances of the ease was a fraudulent preference, or if not, whether it is protested by Section 55, which protests bona tide transactions with the debtor in spite of impending insolvency. It is quite clear that in the early part of the year in question, namely 1919, the insolvent Rod well, who had been carrying on this transport business under the name of Smith Rod well and Co., had got into serious difficulties. His debts wore ultimately estimated at something like a lakh and some thousand rupees. He came into contact with one Chuttan Lal, the present respondent and a creditor in the insolvency, who seeks to upset this transaction, and the result of that association was an agreement under which, in substance, Chuttan Lal became the proprietor of the business, The relevant facts relating to the arrangement between Chuttan Lal and the insolvent are set out in a very clear and able report by the Receiver in the insolvency, dated the 28th of February 1920, the result of which is that, according to the view of the Official Receiver, Chuttan Lal was independently running the transport business from about the end of May 1919, Chuttan Lal and the insolvent have been elsewhere described as partners, but we do not think it necessary to express any opinion as to the precise legal relationship created by the agreement between them, the relevant fast for this purpose being that, whether Chuttan Lal was the sole proprister as the Receiver seems to think, or the dominant partner, he allowed the business to be continued just as it was before, so that members of the general public who were not acquainted with the domestic arrangements of the business, and who did business with the firm, would suppose that Rod well was in fact the true owner. in other words, the result of the arrangement was that Chuttan Lal, although himself the owner, held out Rod well as being still the owner of the business and of the cars. The result was that though as between Chuttan Lal and Rodwell the earnings of the business in the month of June, which is the material month in this case, belonged, as the Receiver properly reported, to Chuttan Lal, the document under which Smith Rodwell and Co. were entitled to claim payment from the Divisional Distributing Officer was in the name of Smith Rodwell alias Rodwell, so as to make him the legal owner thereof as regards the debtor and the person entitled to claim payment. It is obvious that, armed with this warrant, Rodwell was in a position to make ar