1. This is an appeal by two of th6 judgment-debtors, who have been adjudicated insolvents, against the decision of the learned District Judge of Hoogly, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah. These judgment-debtors appeal with reference to certain property that the learned District Judge, agreeing with the Subordinate Judge, has found to have been fraudulently concealed from the creditors and the Official Receiver. That obviously they cannot do. If this property belonged to the insolvents, then they were bound to disclose it and, under the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, that property vested in the Official Receiver. If it was not the property of the insolvents, of course, they had no right to appeal as regards thereto. In this case, if anybody has got a right of appeal, he is the Official Receiver who is quite satisfied with the means by which this decree-holder has managed to discover and recover this property from the fraudulent insolvents. The procedure that has been adopted in this cafe is not an uncommon procedure in, this country with reference to the Provincial Insolvency Act. No proper establishment bas been created in the subordinate Courts for the working of this Provincial Insolvency Act, and the practice has grown up of discovering property fraudulently retained by the insolvent by means that appear in the present case. Of course we presume that the sale in this case was made with the concurrence of the Official Receiver. If the Official Receiver did not concur in the sale, his rights are not interfered with. The order provides for the sale proceeds to go to his hands. So, presumably, he knew and approved of the course of action adopted by the decree-holder, the respondent to the appeal.
2. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs one gold mohur.
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.
3. I agree.