JUDGMENT C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In both these matters the orders of the two courts. giving sanction to the appointee in whom property was vested, to sell certain items of property is under attack by Mr. C Unikanda Menon, learned counsel. 2. As it was doubtful as to whether the petitioner's remedy is by way of a Civil Revision Petition or by way of an appeal, both the CR.P. and the S.A. in the alternative have been filed. 3. The petitioner in the C.R.P. who is the appellant in the S.A. was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. 3/51, Subordinate Judge's Court, Palghat under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 which was in force in that area. As the petitioner did not apply for discharge within the time specified in the order by the court, the adjudication of the petitioner as an insolvent was annulled by the court on 30th January 1956 under section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. There is no controversy that on annulment under section 43 (1) of the Act inasmuch as the provisions of section 37 applied automatically, the court passed an order vesting the properties in the Official Receiver as the appointee subject to the conditions imposed in the order. 4. The Official Receiver filed an application before the court requesting for sanction to dispose of certain properties of the insolvent of which he was the appointee in charge. When an attempt was made by the Official Receiver in this respect the petitioner appears to have objected to the right of the Official Receiver to deal with the properties in the manner contemplated by him; and that necessitated the Official Receiver making a request by his letter dated 5th June 1962 to the court to grant him the necessary permission. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge after giving the the petitioner an opportunity of being heard has by his order dated 22nd October 1962 granted the sanction prayed for by the Official Receiver and ultimately the order by that court was to the effect that the Official Receiver is given permission to sell and distribute the item of property as prayed for by him. 6. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge has referred to the difference of opinion between the various High Courts as to the legal position resulting from an order of annulment passed under section 43 of the Act and which is resulting in the properties vesting in such person as the court appoints under section 37 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge is of the view that the majority of the High Courts have expressed the opinion that the appointee in whom the properties are vested after the annulment order of adjudication can continue to administer and distribute the estate of the debtor vested with him subject to the directions of the court which he has to take in other action of his. 7. This order of the learned Subordinate Judge was attacked by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Palghat in C.M.A. 14/63. The learned District Judge has referred to the decisions of the Calcutta, Lahore, Madras, Orissa, Patna and Cochin and Travancore High Courts to the effect that a receiver or an appointee in whom the property vests under section 37 (2) of the Act is entitled to realise and distribute the assets as receiver appointed in an adjudication under section 28 of the Act. References to these decisions are given by the learned District Judge in his order. The learned District Judge has also referred to a different view expressed by the Allahabad, Nagpur and Rangoon High Courts that the Receiver is only a custodian of property awaiting its being proceeded against by the creditors in the ordinary way and has no power to distribute the assets among the creditors. 8. In view of the fact that the question arose in a jurisdiction which formed part of the Madras area and also on the basis that the decision of the Madras High Court would govern such jurisdiction, the learned Judge has ultimately followed the view expressed by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court a decision reported in Veerayya v. Sreenivasa Rao I.L.R. 58 Madras 908. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. C. Unikanda Menon made an attempt to canvass the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court which in turn must also be considered to be an attempt to reopen the view expressed by the Cochin and Travancore High Courts in particular as well as the Calcutta, Lahore, Orissa, Patna and Bombay High Courts also. According to the learned counsel certain aspects namely the fact that on an annulment the debtor loses the protection given to him from arrest and the power granted in the Insolvency Act itself to annul adjudication even in cases where a debtor satisfied the court that he has discharged his liabilities in full to all the creditors have not been properly taken into account by the various courts when they came to the conclusion that, the appointee has got a right to administer the property of the insolvent notwithstanding the order of annulment passed by the court. I have given due consideration to these aspects. In this case I have already stated that the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Veerayya v. Sreenivasa Rao I.L.R. 58 Madras 908 construing the provisions of section 43 and section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act has also been adopted by the Travancore and Cochin High Courts in considering analogous provisions contained in the Travancore Insolvency Act 1108 [(Act 8 of 1108) and the Cochin Insolvency Act 7 of 1098. Those two Acts have been repealed only by section 86 of the Travancore-Cochin Insolvency Act 2 of 1956 which again is the Insolvency Act now governing the Kerala State as such. That Act also contains provisions analogous to sections 37 and 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act namely sections 38 and 44. That is the position so far as this State is concerned in all the three jurisdictions against the point of view that is sought to be pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Court. 10. I do not see any reason to go behind those decisions which have stood the test of time. Even apart from that, in my opinion, the principles laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Veerayya v. Sreenivasa Rao appears to be very reasonable view to be taken in the circumstances. 10. I do not see any reason to go behind those decisions which have stood the test of time. Even apart from that, in my opinion, the principles laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Veerayya v. Sreenivasa Rao appears to be very reasonable view to be taken in the circumstances. In fact, a reference to the said Full Bench decision will clearly show that three points of view which could possibly be urged in consider- ing section 43 read with section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act have been adverted to and discussed by the learned Judges. The learned Judges have rejected the two extreme views namely: (1) that on annulment the entire insolvency proceedings come to an abrupt end; and (2) that in spite of an order of annulment passed by the court under section 43, the insolvency proceedings are continued for all purposes and the appointee has. got all powers to administer the estate in the same manner as was being done up to that date. These two extreme views, if I may say so with great respect, have been rightly rejected by the learned Judges of the Full Bench. 11. The third view which has been accepted is that an appointee continues to be subject to the directions of the insolvency court which appointed him and that these directions relate to the property of the insolvent and they should be given in accordance with the policy and pro- visions of the Insolvency Act. The learned Judges also express the view that the insolvency court, even after passing an order of annulment under section 43 of the Act retains full power to give directions under section 37 as to the realisation and disposal of the debtor's assets. But the learned Judges also throw a word of caution namely that the said power should not be used arbitrarily by the court but should only be used in the interests not of any particular individual creditor but of the whole body of creditors. 12. As I have stated earlier I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Full Bench , decision of the Madras High Court) which view has also been adopted by the Travancore and the Cochin High Courts separately while interpreting analogous provisions contained in the Travancore and Cochin Insolvency Acts. 12. As I have stated earlier I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Full Bench , decision of the Madras High Court) which view has also been adopted by the Travancore and the Cochin High Courts separately while interpreting analogous provisions contained in the Travancore and Cochin Insolvency Acts. Therefore it follows that the orders of both the courts are perfectly correct and this CR.P. and the S.A. will have to be dismissed. No order as to costs. There will be no leave in the S.A.