1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Azamgarh in insolvency proceedings. The appellant when he was adjudicated was the owner of a large amount of landed property and consequently would not have been entitled to the benefits provided by the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940. His property vested in the Official Receiver who sold a large part of it. When there was only so much property remaining that the owner of it would have been protected by the Debt Redemption Act, the appellant made an application that the decrees passed against him should be revised and that the debts for which he was liable should be examined in the light of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The question arose in the Court below whether it could be said that the monies due amounted to loans because at the time when the advances were made the appellant was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The question raised is somewhat complicated, but it seems to us that it is unnecessary to decide it. The simple objection to the appellant's claim is that he was not an agriculturist at the time when the proceedings for reduction of the debts were instituted, or for that matter at the commencement of the Act. Up to the date of adjudication he was not an agriculturist because he owned too much property, Thereafter he was not an agriculturist because he owned no property at all, the whole of his landed property having become vested in the Official Receiver. Learned Counsel on his behalf has drawn our attention to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 28, Provincial Insolvency Act, and has suggested that the remaining part of the property did not vest in the Receiver because it was protected under the Debt Redemption Act. It seems to us that there is no force in this argument. The question whether the property vested in the Official Receiver would depend upon the position at the date of the adjudication and there can be no doubt that at that date no part of the appellant's property was protected. There is no provision in the Provincial Insolvency Act that any property which has vested in the receiver shall revest in the insolvent if some statute is passed by which it would be protected if it had not vested in the Official Receiver. In our judgment, there is no force in this appeal, and we dismiss it with costs.