Judgment Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is on behalf of the insolvent, arising out of a proceeding in insolvency. The appellant was adjudged insolvent on his own application on 15-5-1954. In his application for being adjudged insolvent, one of the two properties which were mentioned was khata No. 310, village. Shahpur. Pergana Bihea, district Shahabad. On 15-7-1954, one of the creditors mentioned in the application for Insolvency, namely, Rikhideo Ojha, filed an application to the effect that he has come to know that properties, a list of which was appended to the application, belonged to the insolvent and that he was prepared to buy those properties in satisfaction of his own debts. That application of. the creditor disclosed that including khata No. 310 of village Shahpur already mentioned in the petition of insolvency, the insolvent had 8.82 acres of land. This petition of the creditor was opposed by the insolvent, on the ground that some of those properties belonged to the insolvents cosharer and the rest of the properties mentioned in the list had been sold long long ago and were in possession of respective vendees, and the prayer of the insolvent made was that the petition of the creditor for selling the properties as the properties of the insolvent should be rejected. The Court considered this matter, and, after hearing the parties it passed the following order: "The creditor Rikhideo Ojha is willing to purchase certain properties which he alleges belong to the insolvent. If he is willing to take the risk, I do not see why the Court should stand in his way. The receiver is directed to sell the properties mentioned in the creditors petition at a fair price for cash. The sale proceeds will be rateably distributed among the different creditors. Before the final sale the receiver must take the Courts permission". The insolvent prayed for leave to appeal to this Court under Section 75(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the Court below gave the requisite leave. 2 Purnendu Narain, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has said all that could be said in support of the appeal. He submits that the order is wrong because no inquiry was made by the Court below before passing the order and that, therefore, the order should be set aside. 3. Mr. Sambhunath has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. He submits that the order is wrong because no inquiry was made by the Court below before passing the order and that, therefore, the order should be set aside. 3. Mr. Sambhunath has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. He says that under Section 75 an appeal is permitted by law by a person aggrieved and that the insolvent, in the circumstances, of this case, cannot be said to be aggrieved at all. The insolvents case is that the properties disclosed in the application of the creditor either belonged to his cosharer or have been sold already long long time ago. If that be the case, it is beyond comprehension how this insolvent is aggrieved by an order selling properties which, according to the insolvent, do not belong to him. Apart from this it appears quite clear from the authorities that after the order of adjudication, the insolvent -has no right to appeal because the estate of the insolvent vests in the receiver appointed by the Court in the insolvency proceeding. In the Full Bench case of the Madras High Court in -- S. Hari Rao v. Official Assignee High Court, Madras, AIR 1926 Mad 556 (A), it was laid down that "an insolvent has, after the adjudication no legal interest in his estate which has vested in the official assignee; and he has, therefore, no legal right to interfere in the realisation of that estate and he cannot be treated as aggrieved by any order passed in course of such realisation." In the Allahabad High Court also a similar view was taken in the case of -- SakhawatAli V. Radha Mohan, AIR 1919 All 284 (B). It was heft that during the administration of an insolvens estate, an insolvent has no legal interest in the property vested in the trustee, and no locus stand in the administration of the estate, and that the insolvent cannot, therefore, be aggrieved by the sale of the property in which he had no interest and had no locus standi to object to the sale or to prefer an appeal against an order dismissing his objection. Sec.28 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act says that on the making of an order of adjudication, the whole of the property of the insolvent vests in the Court or in a receiver appointed by the Court, and Sec.28A runs as follows: "The property of the insolvent shall comprise and shall always be deemed to have comprised also the capacity to exercise and to take proceedings for exercising all such powers in or over or in respect of property as might have been exercised by the insolvent for his own benefit at the commencement of his insolvency or before his discharge". In my judgment, therefore, the insolvent cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the order of the Court below directing the sate of the property alleging it to belong to the insolvent. In that view of the matter, the insolvent had no right of appeal. Section 75 (3) prescribed that an appeal to this Court can be made either by leave of the District Court or of the High Court. As indicated in this case, leave was given by the district Court. The Court below should have considered whether the insolvent in the circumstances disclosed was a person who can be called a person aggrieved within the meaning of that expression in that section. I would, therefore, hold that no appeal lies to this Court. 4. As we have heard the parties at some length, I would also like to indicate my views on the merit of this appeal. The creditor by his application disclosed certain properties, which, according to him, belonged to the insolvent. The insolvent, in opposition to that application, filed his application to the effect that some of those properties mentioned by the creditor were the properties of the co-sharers and some of them had been sold long long time before the insolvency proceedings started. Apart from this vague allegation no attempt was made by the insolvent to show that any of the properties had been sold or that some of them belonged to the co-sharers. No claimant came forward to claim these properties as properties purchased by him. Apart from this vague allegation no attempt was made by the insolvent to show that any of the properties had been sold or that some of them belonged to the co-sharers. No claimant came forward to claim these properties as properties purchased by him. No indication is given in the petition of the insolvent as to the date of the sale or to the description of the person to whom the property was sold and he felt satisfied by merely stating aa vaguely as possibly he could do-that the properties had been sold and that some of them belonged to the cosharer. Section 4(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act runs thus: "Where the Court does not deem it expedient or necessary to decide any question of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1), but has reason to believe that the debtor has a saleable interest in any property the Court may without further inquiry sell such interest in such manner and subject to such conditions as it may think fit" The order which I have already quoted, in my opinion, is not happily worded. It should have said after considering the matter that it was a case in which no inquiry was expedient or necessary. It has not those expressions, but in my opinions upon the facts disclosed there can be no doubt as to what it meant by this order. It was a case in which the insolvent did not disclose even the names of the purchaser or the date of the sale. In my opinion, the application of the insolvent was a mere frivolous application and when the Court passed the order which it did it must toe deemed to have passed that order under S.- 1 (3) Just quoted above. Mr. Narain has placed before us the cases reported - in -- Jugalpada Dutt V/s. Ganesh Chandra Pal, AIR 1919 Cal 507 (C); and Gani Mahomed v. Dina Math, AIR 1928 Lah 556 (D). The facts of those cases are not at all relevant and therefore those authorities can give us no guidance. He also cited the case of -- Nayan Tara Dasi V/s. Sambhu Nath, AIR 1925 Gal 932 (E). In that case the claimants were the appellants and their complaint was that the learned District Judge had neither inquired into their claims nor did he pass proper orders under the law. He also cited the case of -- Nayan Tara Dasi V/s. Sambhu Nath, AIR 1925 Gal 932 (E). In that case the claimants were the appellants and their complaint was that the learned District Judge had neither inquired into their claims nor did he pass proper orders under the law. The receiver in the insolvency proceeding had stated in an application that the insolvent was in possession of certain properties which, he thought, belonged to the insolvent. The claimants had filed on affidavit in support of their claims to those properties, but the learned District Judge did not apply his mind on the question of title raised by the claimants. On these facts it was held that the Court ought to have applied its mind as to why it did not think it expedient or necessary to go into the claims made by the claimants. Accordingly, that case is of no assistance on the facts of the pre-sent case. 5 I find a subsequent order of the learned Judge dated 26-8-1954, that the creditor Rikhideo Ojha had expressed his willingness to purchase the entire property, namely, 8.82 acres, for a sum of Rs. 1000 only. The learned Judge by that order said that the price offered appeared to be low. There is no doubt that the Court below would properly consider the question of the price before finally approving the offer of the creditor. 6. In the result, I would dismiss this appeal with costs. Ahmad, J. 7 I agree.