1. This is an appeal by Raj Suraj Pal Singh of Awagarh from an order directing the discharge of Shib Lal, an insolvent.
2. Shib Lal was adjudicated an insolvent in November 1925. The amount of the scheduled debts came to about Rs. 18,500, out of which the debts for which the insolvent was responsible to the Raja cane to about Rs. 8,500. The assets of the insolvent which were available to the Official Receiver consisted of a building which was sold by the Receiver for Rs. 80. The finding of the Court below is that the insolvent is not possessed of any other property. It appears that the appellant obtained his decree against the respondent some time in November 1921. The insolvent transferred certain properties belonging to him by certain alienations between 1921 and December 1924. The present appellant instituted the suit for the setting aside of some of these alienations on the ground that they were without consideration, that they were fictitious and the so-called alienations were merely cloaks intended to save the property from the clutches of the creditors. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the decree was upheld in appeal. The application for discharge having been made by the insolvent, the said application was resisted by the present appellant on various grounds. It was alleged that the insolvent had suppressed his account books and was guilty of gross fraud and was carrying on business in the name of other persons. The learned District Judge finds that there is no proof of these assertions. It was alleged that the present application ought not to have been allowed, because it was in the teeth of Section 42(a), Provincial Insolvency Act (Act 5 of 1920). It is true that the assets of the insolvent are less than eight annas in the rupee on the amount of unsecured liabilities, but it has not been shown that this state of things has been brought about by any fraudulent act on the part of the insolvent or by circumstances which he could have controlled. Under the circumstances, Section 42, Clause (a), does not stand in the way of the insolvent procuring his discharge. We think that the order of the Court below is right, and we dismiss this appeal with costs.