JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This order shall govern Civil Revisions Nos. 1382 and 1678 of 1965 by Smt. Indrawati, and Smt. Chameli Devi and another against the order dated 17-7-1965 of the II Additional District Judge, Meerut not treating the firm as a partnership firm and adjudging all the coparceners of the joint family including the three applicants as insolvents. 2. Smt. Chameli Devi, applicant no. 1 in Civil Revision No. 1678 of 1965 is the widow of Jhabu Mal who had four sons Brij Kishore, Ram Lal, Laxmi Narain and Khushi Ram. Smt. Chandrawati, applicant no. 2 is the widow of Brij Kishore while Smt. Indrawati applicant in Revision No. 1382 of 1965 is the widow of Khushi Ram. Chetan Prakash and Shyam lal are the sons of Laxmi Narain. 3. Brij Kishore died in 1940, Jhabu Mal in 1945 and Khushi Ram in August 1960. On 13-10-1948 Ram Lal, Laxmi Narain and Khushi Ram entered into a partnership agreement and carried on business in the name of Messrs Beli Ram, Ram Swarup. The firm was registered with the Income Tax authorities. After the death of Khushi Ram, Ram Lal, Laxmi Narain and Smt. Indrawati executed a similar partnership agreement. This agreement was executed on 13-8-1960 i.e., three days after the death of Khushi Ram. 4. Ram Lal and Laxmi Narain as partners of the firm executed a sale deed in favour of Dr. Madan Mohan on 24-10-1960 and as members of the joint Hindu family executed another sale deed dated 24-12-1960 in favour of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ltd., Meerut. This was treated as acts of insolvency and further Ram Lal and Laxmi Narain are alleged to have orally mentioned that they were not in a position to pay the debts. 5. The Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd., thereupon moved the present petition for adjudging Messrs Beli Ram, Ram Swarup, Laxmi Narain, Ram Lal and Smt. Indrawati as insolvents. Later on, the petition was amended as if the family was still joint and the business was joint family business and Smt. Chameli Devi, Smt. Chandrawati and the two sons of Laxmi Narain were also impleaded and the request then made was for adjudging them also as insolvents. 6. The insolvency petition was not opposed by Ram Lal and Laxmi Narain and also by the two sons of Laxmi Narain. 6. The insolvency petition was not opposed by Ram Lal and Laxmi Narain and also by the two sons of Laxmi Narain. They are the three widows who challenged the order declaring them also as insolvents. The II Additional District Judge hearing the appeals, dismissed them with the result that the three widows have now filed the present revisions to challenge the order of adjudication. 7. Under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the High Court can interfere if the decision is not according to law. 8. A petition under Section 17 read with Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is maintainable only when an act of insolvency has been committed within three months before the presentation of the petition. They are persons who have committed the act of insolvency who can be adjudicated as insolvent. It has to be seen, whether the present applicants did or did not commit an act of insolvency. 9. They were Ram Lal and Laxmi Narain who executed the sale deeds and who indicated their inability to pay the debts. There is no allegation that Smt. Indrawati had given her consent to the execution of the sale deeds or had refused to pay the debts. Under Section 19 (2) (g) of the Partnership Act in the absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary, a partner does not have ample authority to transfer immovable property belonging to the firm. Such an authority can vest in the partners or in it partner under a contract between the partners. The partnership agreement executed in August, 1960 gives no such power to the partners. There is no evidence on record which may show that there exists usage or custom of trade to the contrary. Hence, from the very execution of the sale-deeds it cannot be inferred that Smt. Indrawati and the other widows were parties to the transfer of immovable property. 10. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the three widows had also committed an act of insolvency such that they be also declared insolvents. If a contrary view is taken, it will lead to very serious consequences. 10. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the three widows had also committed an act of insolvency such that they be also declared insolvents. If a contrary view is taken, it will lead to very serious consequences. For example, if the manager of a joint Hindu family committed an act of insolvency and based on this act of insolvency all the co-parcerners are declared insolvents, many young members of the joint family would be precluded from getting a Government job or from standing in election. Whenever as a consequence of the order a person is disentitled of his rights or privileges, the courts of law must take a strict view and not give a liberal interpretation. 11. A similar law was laid down in Firm Mukund Lal Veerkumar v. Purshottam Singh, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1182. 12. The courts below, therefore, acted erroneously by declaring Smt. Indrawati, Smt. Chameli Devi and Smt. Chandrawati Devi as insolvents. The order adjudging them as insolvents deserves to be set aside. 13. Both the Revisions are hereby allowed the orders of the courts below, in so far as these applicants are concerned, are set aside. The order adjudging Smt. Indrawati, Suit. Chameli Devi and Smt. Chandrawati Devi as insolvents is set asides. Costs of all the courts on the parties. Stay order is vacated.