JUDGMENT

Baguley and Mosely, JJ - This is an appeal by a receiver in insolvency against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Thaton, refusing to set aside a transfer made by two insolvents. In the application filed in the original proceedings, no section of the Provincial Insolvency Act is mentioned, but it seems clear that the application was made for the transfer to be voided either under Section 53 or Section 54, whichever the Court might think most applicable. The Additional District Judge found that the respondents had proved that the transfer was honestly made for good consideration, which would of course have been a good reply to an application made under Section 53. The question of whether the transfer could have been voided under Section 54 was not dealt with. In appeal before us it was argued that the transfer should have been voided under Section 54 because, although it was executed on the 11th June 1935 and the application for insolvency was filed on the 18th September 1935, more than three months later, the document was not registered until the 25th September 1935, actually after the filing of the application for insolvency. It was argued that this case is covered by the published ruling in U. Ba Sein v. Maung San A.I.R. 1934 Rang. 216, and if we agree with this ruling there is little doubt but that the appeal would have to be allowed. Unfortunately, we do not find ourselves in agreement with this ruling, and for that reason we refer this matter to such Full Bench as the Honourable the Chief Justice may decide. Where we differ from the published judgment is with regard to the passage on p. 266 where, after quoting the relevant portion of Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act and Section 59, T.P. Act, the judgment goes on to state:

No legal interest in the property passes from the mortgagor to the mortgagee except upon registration of the deed. The provisions of Section 47, Registration Act, do not in our opinion run counter to this proposition, for although that section throws back the commencement of the operation of the document, when registered, to the date of the execution, it does not pretend to lay down that where an instrument which affects immoveable property requires to be registered, title in the property passes before registration is effected.

2. With this, as it stands, we are in entire agreement, but the point here is not the date on which title to the property passes, but the date with effect from which title in the property passes, and what Section 47, Registration Act, says is that the document shall operate from the date of execution. If the document operates from the date of execution, we do not under, stand how it can be said that the date of transfer is anything except the date of the execution of the transfer, and Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, says that the transfer of property shall be deemed fraudulent and void against the receiver if such person is adjudged insolvent on a petition presented within three months after the date of the transfer of the property. That is what we hold the section to mean. "When it says "every transfer of property...shall, if such person is adjudged insolvent in a petition presented within three months after the date thereof...." the word "thereof" must mean "of the transfer," and the date of the transfer must be the date of its execution, as, if subsequently registered, the transfer takes effect from the date of execution. One can well imagine apt words for expressing the meaning attributed to the section by our brothers, e.g. "after the transfer is completed," but in our opinion such words have not been used, and with respect, we do not consider, that the fact that the wording used may sometimes cause hardship is a good reason for giving it a strained interpretation. This is an evil, if evil it is, for the Legislature to cure. However, as we cannot decide the ease in a contrary sense to the published ruling of a Bench of this Court, we refer to