JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, J. 1. This appeal relates to two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1603 and 1605 of 1122, filed by the Official Receiver before the District Court of Kottayam. The petitions were for the annulment of two voluntary transfers under section 53 of the Travancore Insolvency Act, 1108. 2. The section reads as follows: "Any transfer of property not being (i) a transfer made before, or at, and in consideration of, marriage, or (ii) a transfer made to, or for the wife or children of the transferor of property that has accrued to the transferor in consideration of the marriage or in right of his wife, or (iii) a transfer made in favour of a purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, shall, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent within two years after the date of the transfer, be voidable against the receiver, and may be annulled by the Court ." 3. The petitions were tried jointly and dismissed by a common judgment. The evidence was recorded in C.M.P. No. 1603 of 1122. 4. The document sought to be annulled in C.M.P. No. 1605 of 1122 is Ext. B., dated 2nd Chingam 1118. It was registered on 25th Thulam 1118. The petition for adjudication was filed on 19th Kumbhom 1119. The order of adjudication followed on 16th Kumbhom 1120. 5. The lower court held that as the transfer was not within the two years immediately prior to 16th Kumbhom 1120 it cannot be annulled under section 53 of the Act. For action under that section the transferor should have been "adjudged insolvent" within two years after the date of the transfer. 6. The controversy is as to the date on which the transferor should be considered as "adjudged insolvent''. If the material date is the date of the order of adjudication (16th Kumbhom 1120) then the lower court was right, and this appeal has to be dismissed. 7. 6. The controversy is as to the date on which the transferor should be considered as "adjudged insolvent''. If the material date is the date of the order of adjudication (16th Kumbhom 1120) then the lower court was right, and this appeal has to be dismissed. 7. According to the appellant the words ''adjudged insolvent" should be construed not merely in the light of section, 53 but also of section 28 (5) which provides: "An order of adjudication shall relate back to and take effect from trie date of the presentation of the petition on which it is made."� If this retroactive operation of the order of adjudication has to be taken into account for the purposes of section 53, then the material date will be the date of the presentation of the petition for adjudication" 19th Kumbhom 1119 and the transfer will be amenable to annulment as one made within the period stipulated in that section. 8. Section 53 of the Travancore Insolvency Act, 1108, corresponds to section 53 of the Provincial Insol- vency Act, 1920, which at present reads as follows: "Any transfer of property not being a transfer made before and in consideration of marriage or made in favour of a purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration shall, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent on a petition presented within two years after the date of transfer, be voidable as against the receiver and may be annulled by the Court."� The words "on a petition presented" were substituted for the words " is adjudged insolvent" by Act X of 1930. 9. Before the amendment there was a conflict of opinion as to whether the two years period was to be calculated backwards from the order of adjudication or from the date of the presentation of the petition, or in other words, as to whether section 53 was controlled by section 28 (7)-section 28(5) of the Travancore Act or not. 10. As pointed out by Mulla: "It was held in Bombay, Lahore, Rangoon and Sind, that it was to be calculated backwards from the date of the order of adjudication, the reason given being that the words used were 'is adjudged insolvent' which could only refer to the actual date of adjudication, and that the doctrine of relation back could not be imported into this section. On the other hand it was held in Calcutta, Madras, Allahabad and Nagpur that the period was to be calculated backwards from the date of the presentation of the petition on which the order of adjudication was made. The reason given was that the section had to be read with the relation, back clause, which was a general clause, and under that clause an order of adjudication related back to and took effect from the date of the presentation of the petition on which it was made.'(The Law of Insolvency in India, Second Edition, Page 616.) 11. The Notes on Clauses of the Bill which became Act X of 1930 dealt with the matter as follows: "Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions as to whether terminus a quo for the calculation of the period of two years referred to therein should be the date of the order of adjudication or the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition. The view that the terminus a quo should be the date of the presentation of the petition is in pursuance of the policy underlying the Act, and the contrary view leads to an abuse of the provision by dishonest and litigious debtors. The clause gives effect to the former view." 12. The earliest decision of the Travancore High Court to which our attention was drawn is Marti Rosa v. V. N. Padmanabha Pillay 14 T.L.J. 92 and the latest Ittakku lttapiri v. V. N. Padmanabha Pillay 19 T.L.J. 806. Both the decisions take the same view. In Ittakku Ittapiri v. V. N. Padmanabha Pillay 19 T.L.J. 806 the Court extracted the following passage from Rachamadugu Rangiah v. V. V. Appaji Rao 51 M.L.J. 719. "The policy and scope, of the Insolvency Act is to prevent fraudulent preferences and fraudulent transfers and the period mentioned in section 53 has nothing to do with the delay of the court in passing the order of adjudication. The matter might be taken as far as the Privy Council; could it be said that a voluntary transfer made a few days before the presentation of the insolvency petition could not be attacked by reason of the adjudication not having been made for a considerable time owing perhaps to causes over which the court might not have control. The matter might be taken as far as the Privy Council; could it be said that a voluntary transfer made a few days before the presentation of the insolvency petition could not be attacked by reason of the adjudication not having been made for a considerable time owing perhaps to causes over which the court might not have control. We have no hesitation in holding that the period of two years should be calculated backwards from the date of the presentation of the petition on which the adjudication is made". and said that it agreed with that view as it appeared "to be in consonance with common-sense and the policy of the Insolvency Law ". The view has remained unaltered in the Travancore State since 1923, and we see no adequate reason to come to a different conclusion. 13. It follows that the appeal in so far as it relates to C.M.P. No. 1605 of 1122 has to be allowed. 14. C.M.P. No. 1603 of 1122 seeks the annulment of Ext. A. It is a sale deed executed on 10th Kumbhom 1117 and registered on 27th Meenam 1117. The petition for adjudication, as already stated, was presented on 19th Kumbhom 1119 and the order of adjudication was on 16th Kumbhom 1120. 15. The lower court said. "Even assuming that the order of adjudication would relate back to the date of presentation of the petition by force of section 28 (5) of the Act, the present petition would still be barred by the two years rule." The conclusion is correct and the appeal in so far as it relates to C.M.P. No. 1603 of 1122 has to be dismissed. 16. Judgment accordingly. The parties will bear their respective costs here and in the court below.