Judgment :- 1. In this revision petition Mr. K.S. Paripoornan, learned counsel for the petitioners, who were some of the counter-petitioners, namely counter-petitioners, 1 to 7, in A.D.R.P. No. 3/60, challenges the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum overruling certain objections raised by them to the maintainability of the application filed by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 37/50 on the file of the District Court of Trivandrum, claiming relief under S.15 of Act 31 of 1958, in A.D.R.P. 3/60. 2. The 1st respondent, against whom the petitioners had obtained the decree in question, filed an application under S.15 of Kerala Act 31 of 1958, for settlement of his debts. That application was opposed by the present revision petitioners on two grounds, namely (1) that the applicant was not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act 31 of 1958, and (2) that the applicant has not shown very many items of property, which, though he claims to have alienated in favour of third parties, really belonged to him and form part of his assets, and therefore having regard to the circumstance that some of the items which are stated by the petitioner as forming part of the assets of the debtor have not been shown in the application filed by the debtor, the application is not maintainable. 3. So far as the first of these contentions is concerned, the debtor opposed the claim made by the petitioners. He relied upon the circumstance that the properties included in schedule A of his application under S.15 of the Act are agricultural lands and that he is an agriculturist as that expression is defined in S.2 (a) of the Act. So far as the 2nd contention is concerned the debtor pleaded that he has shown all the assets which he is possessed of on the date of filing the application under S.15 of the Act. He also contended that the transfers and alienations referred to by the petitioners cannot be invoked by them for the purpose of treating the properties covered by those alienations as still belonging to the debtor inasmuch as he has lost title over those items long ago, and therefore in the eye of law they cannot be considered to be assets of the debtor. It was also urged that even assuming that the debtor has not shown some of the assets, which may belong to him, in his application filed under S.15, nevertheless the application cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, so far as first point is concerned, has recorded a finding to the effect that the debtor is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act 31 of 1958, inasmuch as the properties included in schedule A of his application under S.15 are agricultural lands. It is also the view of the learned Subordinate Judge that the revision petitioners have not satisfied the court that the debtor is taken out of the definition of 'agriculturist' as defined in S.2 (a) of the Act. So far as the second aspect is concerned the learned judge does take note of the fact that the debtor who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court under S.15 of the Act 31 of 1958 has transferred some items in favour of third parties, evidenced by Exx. P-4 to P-8. But the learned judge is of the view that the court, exercising jurisdiction under S.15 of the Act has no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the sale deeds or other documents executed prior to the commencement of the Act. Another reason given by the learned judge is to the effect that the transferees under those documents had filed claim petitions before the court when the creditors sought to proceed against them as properties belonging to the debtor, and those claim petitions have been accepted and certain suits are pending to set aside the claim orders. On those grounds, the learned judge is of the view that the attack made by the creditors to the maintainability of the application filed by the debtor on the ground that the debtor has not shown those items which are subject of transfer under Exx. P-4 to P-8, cannot be fatal to the maintainability of the application. Ultimately the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the application filed by the debtor is maintainable. The learned judge has also directed the Official Receiver to take over the properties and administer the same and take steps to settle the debts due by the debtor in the light of the provisions contained in S.15 and 18 of the Act. 5. Mr. The learned judge has also directed the Official Receiver to take over the properties and administer the same and take steps to settle the debts due by the debtor in the light of the provisions contained in S.15 and 18 of the Act. 5. Mr. K.S. Paripoornan, learned counsel for the petitioners cannot naturally attack the finding of the trial court holding that the debtor is an "agriculturist" as that expression is defined in S.2 (a) of the Act, because the trial court, as I mentioned earlier, has adverted to the properties mentioned in schedule A of the application filed by the debtor and held that he is a person who has got an interest in agricultural land and that he satisfies the definition of the expression 'agriculturist' under S.2(a) of the Act. 6. But the more serious contention that has been taken before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with respect to the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge that a court exercising jurisdiction under S.15 to 18 of Act 31 of 1958 has no power to go into the question as to whether certain transactions stated to have been effected by the debtor in favour of third parties are with a view to defeat and defraud the creditors and accept the claim of the creditors after investigation that those assets must still be considered to be assets of the debtor himself. As I mentioned earlier, the view of the learned Subordinate Judge for rejecting this contention of the petitioners is rested on two grounds, namely that the court functioning under S.15 of the Act has no such jurisdiction conferred by statute, and secondly that the transferees under those transactions effected by the debtor had succeeded in the claim petitions filed by them before the executing court. Both these reasons given by the learned judge are criticised by Mr. Paripoornan, counsel for the petitioners. Both these reasons given by the learned judge are criticised by Mr. Paripoornan, counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel pointed out that under S.15 of the Act the debtor has to show in his application the particulars regarding the amount of all claims against him at the commencement of the Act, together with the name, address and residence of his creditors, and he should also give the amount and other particulars of all his property including claims due to him together with a specification of the value of such property and the place or places at which any such property is to be found and details of any mortgage, lien or charges thereon. The learned counsel also pointed out that on such an application being filed the court has to issue notice to the creditors under S.16; and there is an obligation on the part of the court under the statute, namely S.17 to determine the admissibility and the amount of each such claim, and for that purpose take all steps necessary for the determination of any question raised in the case. The learned counsel also relied upon the concluding part of S.17 of the Act wherein it is provided that the procedure prescribed in the Insolvency Act, 1955, shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to an inquiry to be made under S.17. Therefore the learned counsel pointed out that in this case according to the debtor the properties which are the subject of transfers under Exx. P-4 to P-8, are no longer his assets, whereas according to the petitioners, notwithstanding the so-called ostensible transfers they still continue to be property and assets of the debtor inasmuch as they have been effected with the intention of defeating and defrauding the creditors. 7. As to whether the claim made by the debtor that the transactions effected by him are honest transactions is true or not, or as to whether the claim made by the petitioners that they are transactions effected with a view to defeat and defraud the creditors, is part of the inquiry contemplated for settlement of the amount of claim as mentioned in S.17 of the Act. The learned counsel also pointed out that the civil court when dealing with a claim petition under 0.21, if it is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor, then the court is bound to make an order dismissing the application of the decree-holder to remove the obstruction. Therefore the civil court in the circumstances is not concerned to find out as to whether transfer of title on the basis of which the obstructor claims right, title and interest, in his own right, has been made by the debtor with intention to defeat or defraud the creditors, because such inquiry is foreign to the scope of the provisions in 0.21, R.99 C.P.C. Therefore the learned counsel pointed out that the mere fact that a claim petition which has been filed by the transferees may have been accepted by the executing court and the parties aggrieved by such decision have instituted suits, has absolutely no bearing in considering the question as to whether the transactions in question have been effected by the debtor with intention to defeat or defraud the creditors. 8. Mr. G. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent debtor pointed out that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that inasmuch as the properties covered by Exx. P-4 to P-8 have not been shown as assets by the debtor, even assuming that those properties still continue to be the assets of the debtor, and on that sole ground the claim made by the petitioners that the application filed by the debtor should have been rejected, cannot be sustained. In this connection the learned counsel referred me to a Division Bench decision of Joseph and Raghavan, JJ., reported in Kunhitty Sahib v. Cheru 1964 K.L.T. 287 wherein the learned judges have held that the contention that non-inclusion of part of the assets of a debtor in a petition under S.15 of the Act should entail dismissal of the petition cannot be accepted. In fact, this judgment is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that when certain transactions have been entered into by the debtor and the items covered by those transactions have not been included in the assets in his application under S.15, the court whose jurisdiction is invoked has really to find out whether the properties, though they nominally stand in the names of third parties, really belong to the debtor. The learned judges have also held in that decision that the proper procedure to be adopted in such circumstances is to conduct an inquiry as to whether more assets than are admitted by the judgment debtor are available for distribution under S.18. 9. The decision referred to above, in my opinion, makes it clear that the court exercising jurisdiction under S.15 of the Act and when a creditor raises a contention that certain transactions entered into by the debtor in favour of third persons were really with a view to defeat and defraud the creditors and those properties also must be brought in as assets of the debtor for the purpose of distribution in a settlement under S.18 of the Act, that claim must be investigated seems to he justified. Therefore it follows that the view of the learned Subordinate Judge in the present case that the court exercising jurisdiction under S.15 has no power to go into the validity of the sale deeds evidenced by Exx. P-4 to P-8 cannot certainly be sustained. 10. The second reason given by the learned Subordinate Judge in the order under attack is that the fact that the transferees under those documents have filed claim petitions also stands in the way of an investigation being made by the court exercising jurisdiction under S.15 of the Act. That reason is also not a valid one because the scope of the inquiry to be conducted by the civil court in accepting or rejecting a claim petition under 0.21, is totally different from an inquiry to be conducted by a court functioning under S.15 to 18 of Act 31 of 1958 which is more or less analogous to a court functioning under the Insolvency Act. Even accepting that the claim petitions filed by the transferees have been accepted and the suits filed by the decree-holders to set aside the claim orders have also failed, the position in law will only be that for all legal purposes the ostensible title has vested in those transferees. But as the investigation to be made by the insolvency court, which is more or less analogous to the jurisdiction exercised by the court functioning under S.15 to 18 of Act 31 of 1958, is entirely different; namely even on the basis that title has been transferred the question that will have to be investigated will be as to whether the transfer, by such debtor, was with a view to defeat or defraud the creditors. Therefore the inquiry to be conducted by the court under Act 31 of 1958 is totally different from the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by the executing court under 0.21, C.P.C. Therefore the two reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge for coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to ask the court to investigate in these proceedings the question as to whether the transfers effected by the debtor are transfers effected with a view to defeat or defraud the creditors, will have to be set aside. 11. But as I have already indicated, even assuming that the items covered by those transactions still continue to be assets of the debtor, the mere fact that he has not shown in his application under S.15 of the Act those items as assets will not entail dismissal of the application as laid down by the Division Bench decision of the Court referred to earlier in this order. No doubt Mr.G.Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent debtor pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge has stated that even if the debtor is possessed of other properties it will not be fatal to the application and probably the insolvency law will apply to these proceedings and the creditors could always bring them to court. Therefore the learned counsel pointed out that even the learned Subordinate Judge has provided sufficient safeguards for the petitioners to adjudicate the claim regarding the nature of the transactions entered into by the debtor with third parties. I have gone through those observations made by the learned Subordinate Judge. Therefore the learned counsel pointed out that even the learned Subordinate Judge has provided sufficient safeguards for the petitioners to adjudicate the claim regarding the nature of the transactions entered into by the debtor with third parties. I have gone through those observations made by the learned Subordinate Judge. Those observations relate to the claim made by the petitioners regarding the debtor having had some lucrative trade. So far as the sale deeds or transfer deeds effected by the debtor are concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge has categorically held that that court has no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether those transactions were effected with a view to defeat or defraud the creditors. 12. Therefore ultimately the position is that the application filed by the debtor under S.15 of Act 31, of 1958 will have to be held to be maintainable. But it is open to the petitioners to apply to the lower court, after placing proper materials and impleading the necessary parties to the application, and ask for an investigation of the question as to whether the transfers stated to have been made by the debtor were really made with a view to defeat or defraud the creditors. If the answer is in favour of the petitioners, it follows that those items will have to be treated as assets of the debtor available for distribution under S.18 of the Act. But I make it very clear that such an investigation must and should be made in the presence of the transferees whose interest will be vitally affected by any decision rendered by the court. 13. Subject to this reservation made in favour of the revision petitioners, as indicated earlier, the revision petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in the revision.