JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order by the District Judge, Bharatpur dated 11.3.1972 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appellant's petition under sub-section (2) of S. 25 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. 2. The appellant filed a petition in the lower court alleging that his debts amounted to Rs. 12,020/- and that he was unable to pay the same. It was, therefore, prayed that he may be declared insolvent. The application was opposed. Some of the creditors, namely respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 pleaded that the appellant had the income of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month out of the General Store which he was running at Sikari. They also pleaded that he owned and possessed a house at Sikari worth Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,600/-, and, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the appellants was unable to pay his debts. 3. In support of his application the appellant examined himself and one more witness Khan Chand. The appellant stated that he has got only ⅙th share in the house at Sikari, the whole of which was not worth more than Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/-. However, he did not disclose the names of the other co-sharers. His witness PW 2 Sunder Lal nowhere stated that there were any other co-sharers in the house in question though he admitted that the appellant did own the house in question. He has even not stated that the appellant's share in the house is only ⅙th. On the other hand the respondents examined three witnesses, D.W. 1 Bisanda Ram, D.W.2 Khanchand and D.W. 3 Parbati, out of whom the latter two are the masons, who had constructed the house about 4 years prior to their statements. They have stated that the house is worth Rs. 10,000/- and that it belonged to the appellant alone. In this state of evidence the learned District Judge cannot be said to be unjustified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the owner of ⅙th share only in the house. The inference drawn by him that the plaintiff owned the whole house is perfectly correct. It further appears that the appellant is running a general store. The case of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is that he drives an income of Rs. 200/- to Rs. The inference drawn by him that the plaintiff owned the whole house is perfectly correct. It further appears that the appellant is running a general store. The case of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is that he drives an income of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/- p.m. from the General Store and he also takes contracts which yield to him an income of about Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/-per month. The appellant's statement is that he is no doubt running the General Store but that Store is a Cooperative Store and he would get something as remuneration only if the store makes any profit. He, however, adduced no evidence in support of this allegation. In this state of evidence the learned District Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the appellant is unable to pay his debts. 4. This appeal is without force, and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. *******