JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. This is an appeal from an order passed by the second Additional Judge of Meerut, dated the 10th of November, 1912, confirming his order of the 19th August, 1912, made under Act III of 1907. The relevant facts of the case are as follows. One Gammu Swami applied to the Additional Judge on the 30th April, 1912, to be declared an insolvent and his application was granted on the 1st of July, 1912. One of the creditors named Teja Mal stated that the insolvent had given fraudulent preference to one of the other creditors by name Maula Bakhsh who had been paid a sum of Rs. 1,523-11-9 within three months of the institution of the insolvency proceedings. Maula Bakhsh denied the charge. But the learned Judge agreed with Teja Mal and made an order that the money paid to Maula Bakhsh should be made over to the Official Receiver. Maula Bakhsh has come up in appeal to this Court and challenges that order. It appears from the evidence on the record that at first Gammu Swami was paid by the mess for the provisions supplied by him. But subsequently on the complaint of some of the creditors of Gammu and specially on the complaint of Maula Bakhsh, the mess president decided to pay Maula Bakhsh directly out of the money due to Gammu Swami. It was in accordance with that arrangement that the sum in question was paid to Maula Bakhsh about a month prior to the institution of the insolvency proceedings. Maula Bakhsh contends that no question of preference arises in the case inasmuch as Gammu Swami had no choice in the matter of payment. We think his contention is correct and specially so as the contract between Gammu Swami and the mess had been modified at the instance of Maula Bakhsh for more than a year prior to the institution of the insolvency proceedings and in obedience to that modification, payment had been made to Maula Bakhsh for more than a year, directly by the mess president. The word “preference” implies freedom of choice and a free will and, in the present case, the power of payment to Maula Bakhsh had been taken out of the hands of Gammu and the latter had no choice in the matter. The word “preference” implies freedom of choice and a free will and, in the present case, the power of payment to Maula Bakhsh had been taken out of the hands of Gammu and the latter had no choice in the matter. It is in evidence of Captain Stocker that Maula Bakhsh agreed to continue to supply provisions to Gammu Swami for the use of the mess only on condition that the mess would pay him directly. The mess agreed to the arrangement and acted upon it. We, therefore, allow the appeal, and set aside the order of the Additional Judge, with costs.