JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— In the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen the validity of a sale executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is impeached as having been a fraudulent sale within the purview of section 24 of the Insolvent Debtors (Indian) Act. The sale in question was made on the 31st of March, 1904, and was of what is described as a pit of pea grain and a house with three shops situate in Etawah. On the 31st of May, 1904, that is, just over two months from the date of the sale the Bombay creditors of the vendor filed a petition of insolvency against him and upon this petition an order was passed. The Official Assignee took possession of the property in question and sold it to the plaintiff-respondent, and in consequence the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought for the recovery of that property. 2. The lower appellate Court found that the sale to the plaintiff-respondent was made voluntarily but it also found that the sale was not made with the view or intention of committing an act of insolvency; that the transfer was in fact made with the intention of satisfying the claims of a creditor whom the debtors flavoured in preference to other creditors. Such a conveyance is not fraudulent within the meaning of section 24. There is nothing to prevent a person in insolvent circumstances from bona fide disposing of his property in favour of a creditor even though that act may have the effect of disappointing other creditors. If the transfer is carried out two months before the insolvency takes place, such a transaction cannot be impeached, An exposition of the law upon the subject is to be found in the case of Sheo Prasad v. A.B. Miller, (1879] I.L.R., 2 All, 474.. We think, therefore, that the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court was correct, and that this appeal must fail. We dismiss it with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.