JUDGMENT

Mya Bu, J - These are appeals against orders allowing two applications filed in two separate proceedings in insolvency for annulment of transfers made by the insolvents respectively in favour of the appellant firm. In one of the proceedings (No. 48) the insolvents are Maung Mo Ge and Ma Sein Nu while in the other (No. 49) Maung Tha Ngai is the insolvent. These insolvents were adjudicated on petitions presented by one of the creditors on 3rd March 1932. The transfers in question are mortgages respectively executed by Maung Mo Ge and Ma Sein Nu and by Mg. Tha Ngai and his wife Ma Kyok on 5th November 1931 but registered a month later. In the circumstances besetting the transactions it was desirable that the two applications should be tried together and accordingly they were practically tried together and disposed of in a single judgment. The petition in insolvency in each case was based upon acts of insolvency the principal one of which was the transfer in question and the order of adjudication was passed in each case on 20th August 1932.

2. The respondent, receiver in insolvency, filed his application in the two proceedings respectively for annulment of the transfers in question on 14th February 1933. Both in the petitions in insolvency and in the applications for annulment of the transfers the transfers were alleged to have been fraudulent, collusive and without consideration with intent to defeat and delay the claims of the creditors of the insolvents. The further allegation made in each of the applications for annulment of the transfers was that the appellant was privy to the intention to delay and removed the properties conveyed beyond the reach of the insolvents' creditors. These allegations show that the annulment of the transfers in question was sought under the provisions of Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act. In view of the grounds upon which the applications for annulment were based the learned District Judge rightly and properly dealt with them under the provisions off that section. The properties mentioned in the deed executed by Maung Mo Ge and Ma Sein Nu were a piece of paddy land measuring 18.65 acres and a house and site. The deed recites that the properties were mortgaged to secure a sum of Rs. 2,500 with interest at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent per mensem made up of amounts due on old debts on promissory notes for Rs. 250, Rs. 175 and Rs. 2,000 dated 31st May 1930, 30th October 1930 and 17th August 1931 respectively. The properties mentioned in the deed executed by Maung Tha Ngai and his wife consisted of several pieces of paddy land measuring altogether 70.83 acres and a house and site together with out-houses. The deed recites that the properties were mortgaged to secure a sum of Rs. 6,500 with interest at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent per mensem made up of amounts due on promissory notes of Rs. 100, Rs. 200, Rs. 25 and Rs. 6,000 dated 1st February 1930, 29th May 1930, 12th December 1930 and 17th August 1931 respectively. By the execution of these deeds Maung Mo Ge and Ma Sein Nu left only 23 acres of their paddy land unencumbered, while Maung: Tha Ngai and his wife left 40 acres of their paddy land unencumbered.

3. On behalf of the respondent evidence was tendered inter alia to show that the lands left unencumbered were comparatively far less valuable than the lands mentioned in the deeds and were practically valueless, and that the insolvents were at the time financially embarrassed. It was also alleged on behalf of the respondent that the appellant was aware of the indebtedness of the insolvents to the principal petitioning-creditor firm to the tune of Rs. 8,000 on a promissory note and that the main item of old debts in satisfaction of which the transaction in question was purported to have been entered into in each case could not in reality have taken place. On all these points the learned District Judge came to his findings in favour of the respondent and therefore, relying on the appellate decision of this High C