JUDGMENT Harish Chandra, J. - This and the connected S. A. F. 0. No. 29 of 1944 arise out of a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Kanpur, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Judge of the Court of small causes exercising the powers of an Insolvency Judge at Kanpur passed on an application made by the Official Receiver in a case in which one Chandu Lal had been adjudicated insolvent. 2. The debtor Chandu Lal sold some property situated in Juhi which he had acquired from the Improvement Trust to Balchand, the Appellant in appeal No. 29 of 1944 on the 20th August 1937 for a sum of Rs. 1,800/-. On the 17th May 1938 Balchand sold the same property to Sardar Prasad, the Appellant in this appeal for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Chandulal presented a petition for insolvency on the 31st August 1938 and was adjudicated insolvent on the 3rd January 1939. One of the prayers of the Official Receiver was that as Chandulal had been adjudged insolvent within two years after the date of transfer, the transfer made by him with respect to the property in question on the 20th August 1937 in favour of Balchand as well as the subsequent transfer made by Balchand in favour of Sardar Prasad on the 17th May 1938, be annulled Under Sections 53 and 4 of the Insolvency Act and Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. It further appears that Chandulal held a money decree against one Jamaluddin. On the 4th July 1938 Jamaluddin executed a promissory note in favour of Balchand for a sum of Rs. 150/- and on that very date the decree held by Chandulal against Jamaluddin was declared satisfied by the execution Court. The promissory note executed by Jamaluddin in favour of Balchand was subsequently incorporated in a money decree in favour of Balchand. The Official Receiver's case is that these transactions were fictitious and he accordingly asked for a declaration that the money decree obtained by Balchand against Jamaluddin on the basis of a promissory note executed by the latter in his favour on the 4th July 1933 also belonged to the debtors estate. The learned Judge of the Court of small causes accepted both the contentions of the official receiver. The learned Judge of the Court of small causes accepted both the contentions of the official receiver. On appeal the learned District Judge, as we have seen, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Both Balchand and Sardar Prasad have come up in appeal to the High Court. 4. Balchand's appeal is easily disposed of. The Courts below have accepted the statement of Jamaluddin who said that he had in fact received no cash from Balchand and that he was induced to execute a pronote in favour of Balchand as he was able to get the decree that Chandulal held against him adjusted after Chandulal had given up a portion of the decretal amount. The Court below also accepted the evidence that Chandulal used to work as a dalal in the market while Balchand was a Munib in a firm where Chandulal worked and thao they were friends. He was accordingly of opinion that the entire transaction was a collusive one and was entered into with the object of avoiding payment to the creditors. In airiving at this conclusion be also took into consideration, the fact that soon after these transactions bad been completed on the 4th July, 1938, Chandulal applied for insolvency on the 3lst August, 1938. He accordingly found that the money due from Jamaluddin in fact belongs to the estate although as a result of these transactions Jamaluddin had executed a promissory note in favour of Balchand who had subsequently obtained a money decree against him on the basis of that promissory note. The findings are of facts and cannot be interfered with in second appeal. There is. therefore, no force in Balchand's appeal. 5. In regard to Sardar Prasad's appeal the finding of the Courts below is that the sale deed executed by Chandulal in favour Balchand, who was his friend and who must have known all about his financial condition, on the 20th August 1937 was not made in good faith and there can be no doubt that that transfer is covered by Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and is accordingly voidable at the instance of the official receiver. The question, however, is whether the subsequent sale-deed by Balchand in favour of the Appellant Sardar Prasad executed on the 17th May 1938 can also be avoided by the official receiver. The question, however, is whether the subsequent sale-deed by Balchand in favour of the Appellant Sardar Prasad executed on the 17th May 1938 can also be avoided by the official receiver. The Court below has found that so far as Sardar Prasad was concerned it was a bonafide purchase for valuable consideration. But in the view of the Court below when the first transfer in favour of Balchand had been annulled, the Appellant could not acquire a better title than his transferor and the transfer made by Balchand in his favour must also be annulled. The learned District Judge realised the injustice that was involved in this view of the matter, but he apparently thought that the law could not help the Appellant. 6. It is pointed out on behalf of the Appellant that a transfer of property which falls within the mischief of Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is not ab initio void. Had the transfer in favour of Balchand been ab initio void the Appellant could not acquire a title in the property better than that of his transferor and the transfer in his favour would also be void. But what Section 53 says is that any transfer of property falling within the mischief of that section would be vo dable as against a receiver and remains effecttive until actually annulled by the Court. The view has also been expressed in certain cases that such annulment only dates back to the date on which the debtor was adjudged insolvent and that any transfer made by the debtor's transferee before that date would remain unaffected by such annulment. See In Re-Carter and Kenderdine's Contract (1897) 1 Chan. Dn. 776 and Amir Ahmad v. Saiyid Hasan ILR 52 All. 900. In In re. Hart (1912) 3 K.B.D. 6, it was further held that even if the purchase is subsequent 'of the act of bankruptcy, it cannot be avoided if the purchase was for value without notice of an act of bankiuptcy committed by the debtor. However, as was pointed out in Amir Ahmad s case, English Cases are not of much help "because the language of the relevant sections in the various Bankruptcy Acts under which they arose was substantially different." 7. However, as was pointed out in Amir Ahmad s case, English Cases are not of much help "because the language of the relevant sections in the various Bankruptcy Acts under which they arose was substantially different." 7. Speaking for myself I cannot quite understand how it can be said that when a certain transfer has been annulled by the Court, the annulment will have effect from a certain date only. When a transfer is annulted(sic) it, means that the transfer has been cancalled and such annulment should date back to the date of transfer. However, in view of the high authorities before me I need not discuss this matter any further. If the annulment dates back to the date of adjudication which again dates back to the date of presentation of the insolvency petition, he transfer made by Balchand in favour of the Appellant would remain unaffected. 8. There is also the authority of a Bench of this Court in Amir Ahmad's case that a transfer by the transferee cannot be avoided by the official receiver unless it appears that such transfer was not in good faith and for valuable cousiderition. In the present case the finding is that so far as the transfer in favour of the Appellant is concerned it was in good faith and for valuable consideration. 9. It may be mentioned that Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in terms applies only to a transfer by the debtor and not to a subsequent transfer by his transferee. But as pointed out in Amir Ahmad's case such a transfer can also be considered by a Court in a proceeding u/s 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and, as we have seen, the application of the official receiver was so framed as to come under that section also. But as the Appellant has been found to have acted in good faith, the official receiver cannot, as laid down in that case, avail himself of Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and avoid the transfer made in his favour. 10. For the reasons given above I allow the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below dismiss the official receiver's application against the Appellant Sardar Prasad. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I direct that the parties shall pay their own costs throughout. 11. 10. For the reasons given above I allow the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below dismiss the official receiver's application against the Appellant Sardar Prasad. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I direct that the parties shall pay their own costs throughout. 11. The appeal of Balchand (S.A F.O. No. 29 of 1944) is dismissed with costs.