1. This is an appeal by a creditor against the order of the District Court of Salem, declaring the first respondent an insolvent. Originally one creditor filed the petition and afterwards three more petitioners were added, one of whom was the insolvent's sister.
2. The appellant is the creditor who opposes. Two points are taken before us. The first is that the District Court of Salem has no jurisdiction to declare the first respondent us insolvent. There is no doubt that the first respondent was originally a resident of Komarapalayam. He conducted bus business between Komarapalayam and several other places. In the license issued by the Collector, in 1921, he was described as a resident of Komarapalayani. Letters have been addressed from merchants of Madras to him, as a resident of Komarapalayam. It may be that latterly he was carrying on bus business between Bhavani and other places in Coimbatore. But this does not make him exclusively a resident of Bhavani. He had houses both at Bhavani and Komarapalayam. Having regard to the proximity of the two villages, the likelihood is that he is a resident of both the places. Again we cannot take notice of this point in appeal, unless we are satisfied that there is a failure of justice. Beyond the fact] that the insolvency proceedings at Salem may be inconvenient to creditors at Coimbatore, we do not think there is any other failure of justice. Conversely, it may be said that the insolvency proceedings at Coimbatore will be inconvenient to creditors at Salem. To this extent, it is possible that the Salem creditors and the insolvent are in collusion. But at the present stage, it is difficult to say that there is really any collusion or any chance of failure of justice. The petitioner will have to watch the proceedings at Salem in his own interest and if he finds that there is any collusion between the insolvent and any Salem creditor, he will have to complain and take proper steps.
3. The second point taken is that no act of insolvency has been proved. There is some evidence that the first respondent was going about in various places. But apart from this, the insolvent himself gives evidence, saying that he is unable to pay the debts. The situation is, as if he is himself a petitioner. In such cases, there is no purpose in closely scrutinizing the acts of insolvency.
4. The appeal will be dismissed with costs, one set. The Receiver, the second respondent, is at liberty to debit his costs to the estate.