Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises out of an order dismissing an Insolvency Petition on the ground that the petitioners, who had applied for their adjudication as insolvents, are possessed of means sufficient to discharge their debts and that they cannot, therefore, said to be'unable to pay their debts' within the meaning of S.10 of the Insolvency Act. The application for adjudication was opposed by the first counter-petitioner. The petitioners were the foremen of a chitty, and for amounts due to him under the chitty transaction, the first counter-petitioner has obtained against them a decree in O.S. No. 687 of 1119 of the Mavelikara Munsiff's Court. Under the chitty scheme two items of properties alleged to belong to the foremen are charged for the due conduct of the chitty, and the decree in O.S. No. 687 of 1119 also is charged on those items. The petitioners had to get money under a hypothecation bond Ext. II. They have assigned this hypothecation bond to two other persons, and they and the assignees have also jointly filed a suit for realisation of the amount due thereunder. In execution of O.S. No. 687 of 1119, this hypothecation right has been attached as belonging to the petitioners. The petition for adjudication was opposed by the first counter-petitioner on the ground that the two items of properties and the hypothecation right mentioned above belong to the petitioners and that they have, therefore, sufficient means to discharge their debts and are not unable to pay the same. The lower court upheld this contention and dismissed the petition for adjudication. Petitioners have, therefore, filed this appeal. 2. According to the petitioner the two items of properties secured for the due conduct of the chitty do not belong to them but to their tarwad. The first petitioner is the karnavan of his tarwad. Although it is contended by the first counter-petitioner that those properties do not belong to the tarwad, he has not adduced any evidence to show that they are the self-acquired and separate properties of the petitioners. Whether the case of the petitioners that the two items of the properties belong, not to them, but to their tarwad is true or not, it cannot be denied that there is room in this case for a bona fide dispute as to whether those properties belong to the tarwad or not. Whether the case of the petitioners that the two items of the properties belong, not to them, but to their tarwad is true or not, it cannot be denied that there is room in this case for a bona fide dispute as to whether those properties belong to the tarwad or not. It is significant in this connection that in answer to our query why the first counter-petitioner was not executing his decree against the charged properties if those properties belong to the petitioners, who were the foremen of the chitty, his counsel stated that it was on account of the fear of the other members of the tarwad opposing such execution that the first counter-petitioner was proceeding against petitioners 1 and 2 personally and postponing execution against the properties till after personal execution against them. That the hypothecation bond has already been assigned is clear from the suit instituted on it. The dispute between the petitioners and counter-petitioners is whether the assignment is a sham transaction or not. 3. In deciding the question whether a debtor is unable to pay his debts within the meaning of S.10 of the Insolvency Act, the court has primarily to consider the matter from the point of liquid assets. (See page 95, Rameshwardial's "The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920", (second edition). If the conditions are such that he cannot realise his assets when he is called upon to pay his debts, a debtor would be insolvent although the total value of the properties which may subsequently be found to be his as a result of a long and tedious litigation would be sufficient to discharge those debts. Even from the attitude of the first counter-petitioner it is clear that there is dispute as to whether the two items of properties secured for the chitty belong to the petitioners or to their tarwad and that the members of the tarwad are sure to oppose in dealing of those properties by the petitioners. On account of this dispute, which can be resolved only by a suit to which the members of the tarwad also are parties, it would not be possible for the petitioners to immediately alienate the properties and raise the necessary funds to discharge their debts. Similarly there is a dispute regarding the hypothecation bond also and that dispute too cannot be resolved immediately. Similarly there is a dispute regarding the hypothecation bond also and that dispute too cannot be resolved immediately. It is not, therefore possible for the petitioners to discharge their debts with the help of these assets when they are now called upon to discharge them. The only other item of assets which the petitioners are alleged to have is a small monthly allowance they are getting for attending to certain petty services in a temple. This by itself is wholly insufficient for the discharge of the debts, and it appears to be the only means for their livelihood. In the circumstances we hold that the petitioners are unable to pay their debts within the meaning of S.10 of the Insolvency Act. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the lower court and adjudicate the petitioners as insolvents. Their assets will vest in the official receiver of Mavelikara. Parties will bear their costs in this court. Nothing contained in this order will, of course, prevent the official receiver from claiming in the insolvency proceedings that the properties and the hypothecation bond mentioned above really belong to the petitioners.