Appathorai Odayar vs Official Receiver and Another

So far as the application for adjournment made by the appellant is concerned, we think the Judge was perfectly justified in the circumstances of

the case in refusing and his order is further justified by the fact that on the refusal of the adjournment the appellant was unwilling to adduce evidence

which was available in Court at the time. He merely instructed his vakil to throw up his case if the adjournment was refused trusting possibly to get

a different order in the appellate Court. However that may be, the adjournment was rightly refused.

The second point taken with reference to the bond in favour of the appellant is that the question to be determined was one u/s 54 of the

Provincial Insolvency Act and not u/s 53. The Official Receiver had very carefully stated his grounds for taking action u/s 53 and had put in an

alternative prayer that if it were proved that the appellant was a creditor, the alienation should be set aside u/s 54. The appellant did not prove that

he was a creditor and consequently the Court was entitled to proceed on the application u/s 53. In such cases the burden is on the alienee of

proving his bona fides. He failed to do that, and, therefore, the Court''s order setting aside the alienation is correct. The appeal is dismissed with

costs. N. S. Appeal dismissed.