Prima facie proof of inability to pay debts is sufficient for adjudication of insolvency, and the present value of the debtor's properties available for meeting the liabilities should be considered.

Gulam Mohiuddin, A J C—Gopal Prasad submitted an application in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, on 13th Feb. 1926, to be adjudged an insolvent. Bhunesh war Prasad, one of the creditors to whom Gopal Prasad has to pay about Rs. 728-6-6 and who had got him arrested also, opposed the application alleging that Gopal Prasad is in a position to pay his debts. The Additional District Judge found that the applicant has 33 acres of land which gives him a profit of about 200 rupees per year, and besides this the applicant has some occupancy land. He has cursorily observed that, ''the non-applicant's witnesses prove that he has also some cattle and cash.'' He has not definitely ascertained as to how many they are and what is their value. The application was rejected and the appeal bas also been dismissed.

2. It seems to me that both the lower Courts have wrongly refused to adjudicate Gopal Prasad an insolvent. At this stage the debtor is only required to furnish such proof as will satisfy the Court that there are prima facie grounds for believing the same and, in my opinion, such proof has been furnished.

3. The appellant is in possession of some tenancy land, from which an annual income can be derived; but it is not a marketable property, which can be sold at once and from which the debt of Bhuneshwar Prasad can be paid. In dealing with an application for adjudication of insolvency the Court should enquire into the present value of the properties which are available for meeting the liabilities of the debtor and decide whether, having regard to proviso (a) to Section 24, the debtor has proved his inability to pay his debts In Lakshmi Narayan v. Subramania Aiyar,1923 AIR(Mad) 585, where the admitted facts were that the debtor's debt amounted to over Rs. 40,000 and his assets to over Rs. 51,000 and the properties which constituted his assets were under attachment and presumably would be sold and it was accordingly not possible for the debtor to realize the price himself or to use them for the payment of his debts, it was held, that this was sufficient prima facie proof of inability to pay debts.

4. In this case Gopal Prasad cannot sell off the property he has got and satisfy his creditors, and, therefore, there are prima facie grounds for thinking that the debtor is unable to pay his debts and must be adjudged an insolvent.

5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. I allow Rs. 15 as pleader's fees in this Court. The respondents' shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs of the appellants in all the Courts