JUDGMENT N.M. Mithal, J. - One Sushila Devi and her husband Kehari Singh insolvent were not pulling on well and, therefore, the wife started living separately from him and filed suit No. 31 of 1956 against her husband fora decree for maintenance. On 10th April, 1958, this suit was decreed granting maintenance at the, rate of Rs. 100/- per month. On 21st of October, 1901, Kehari Singh sold his entire land which ad measured 33 bigha 16 biswa and 16 biswansi for it sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents herein. Sushila Devi then filed a petition for declaring Kehari Singh an insolvent on 8.2.1962, soon after coming to know of the transfer. On 5-7-1963 her petition was allowed and Kehari Singh was declared insolvent and his property was vested in the Official Receiver. An appeal by the insolvent was dismissed on 19-12-1964. Thereafter on 28-5-1965 the Official Receiver made an application for annulment of the sale deed dated 21-10-1961 which was allowed on 12-11-1965. However, this order was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded which has maintained by the High Court also. When the matter was again enquired into by the Insolvency judge the sale deed was annulled again by order dated 1-9-1971. The respondents filed Appeal No. 93 of 1979 which was allowed by an order dated 27-5-1975, which has been impugned in the present S.A.F.O. 2. The appeal was primarily allowed on the ground that proceedings for annulment under S. 53 of the Insolvency Act were barred in view of S. 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The reasoning adopted was that on 21-10-1961 when transfer of the land was made to the respondents the area was under consolidation and the sale-deed was executed only after obtaining necessary permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Since the matter was pending before the consolidation authorities, it was incumbent for the Receiver, to raise his objections before those authorities and this question cannot now be raised during Insolvency proceedings. This plea found favour with the court below. Apart from this, the court also came to the conclusion that the sale deed had been executed bona fide and for valuable consideration. The Official Receiver, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present Second Appeal from order. 3. This plea found favour with the court below. Apart from this, the court also came to the conclusion that the sale deed had been executed bona fide and for valuable consideration. The Official Receiver, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present Second Appeal from order. 3. According to the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 hereinafter referred to as "the Insolvency Act" particularly S. 4 thereof, all questions whether of title or of any nature whatsoever are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court and subject to the provisions of that Act, the decision taken by the court is final and binding between the debtor or his estate and the claimants. Under the scheme of the Insolvency Act, any debtor or creditor may apply for declaring a debtor as insolvent if certain conditions are satisfied i.e. that the debt owed by the debtor was more than Rs. 500/- and he was unable to pay his debts or had committed any act of insolvency as defined in S. 6 of the Act. On the application being made either by the debtor himself or by any creditor or creditors, the Insolvency Court shall enquire into these matters and if the petitioner has a right to present the petition, it will enter into enquiry about the insolvency of the concerned person. After such enquiries under Section 24, the court may adjudicate a debtor an insolvent specifying therein the period within which the debtor must apply for his discharge. Certain consequences follow on this adjudication being made in view of S. 28 of the Act. Sub-clause (7) whereof gives effect to the order of adjudication from the date of the application. This section also provides that all the property belonging to the insolvent shall vest in the court or the receiver which shall be divisible amongst the various creditors. Thereafter the court will scrutinise each and every debt alleged to be owed by the debtor by and a schedule of creditors shall be prepared among whom the assets of the debtor are to be distributed. Section 53 of the Insolvency Act empowers the receiver to avoid any voluntary transfer made by the insolvent within two years prior to the presentation of the petition for declaring him an insolvent. This is a special provision and runs as under : "53. Avoidance of voluntary transfer. Section 53 of the Insolvency Act empowers the receiver to avoid any voluntary transfer made by the insolvent within two years prior to the presentation of the petition for declaring him an insolvent. This is a special provision and runs as under : "53. Avoidance of voluntary transfer. Any transfer of property not being a transfer made before and in consideration of marriage or made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer 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 the transfer, be voidable as against the receiver and may be annulled by the Court". 4. Bereft of unnecessary parts.. the section provided that except for those transfers which were made in good faith and for valuable consideration, all other transfers made within the period of two years before the date of presentation of the petition shall be voidable at the instance of the Official Receiver and the Insolvency Court is empowered to annul the same. It was under this provision that an application for annulment of the sale deed dated 21-10-1961 was moved in the present case. The application had been moved on 8-2-1962 on which the transferor was adjudged insolvent on 5-7-1963. As seen earlier an appeal was filed by him which was dismissed on 19-12-1964. The official receiver finally made an application under S. 51 on 28-5-1965. In the meantime the area where the land is situate had been de-notified after the issue of notification under S. 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act on 21-3-1964. The Court below has taken the view that no annulment proceedings could have been taken by the Official Receiver as he had failed to take necessary proceedings before the consolidation authorities after the debtor had been adjudged insolvent on 5-7-1963 and he had enough time from that date till 21st March, 1964 to take necessary steps before those authorities for adjudication of his rights. 5. An examination of the provisions of the Insolvency Act will show, however, that under S. 53, official receiver has only been given a right to avoid a transfer provided he can establish to the satisfaction of the Insolvency Court that the transfer made by the insolvent within two years prior to the date of presentation of petition was not in good faith and for valuable consideration. Unless and until he is able to satisfy the insolvency court about the above said conditions and obtains an order for annulment, he has no right or status to raise any question before the consolidation authority. A voluntary transfer made by the insolvent remains valid and effective until the same is annulled by an order of the Insolvency Court. It is only after the annulment of the sale-deed has taken place that a cloud is cast on the title of the transferee. Before such time the Official Receiver can have no occasion to approach the consolidation courts to vindicate his alleged right. In fact he has no right before that at all. The very right to question the title of the transferee arises only after an order of annulment has been secured by him after proceedings under S. 53 have been taken. The first opportunity, therefore, when the receiver could and ought to have taken any proceedings before the consolidation authorities was when the order of annulment had been passed. The only enabling condition to agitate before the consolidation authorities is the existence of a valid and effective order of annulment under S. 53 of the Insolvency Act. 6. It is in the light of the above that we must consider the effect of S. 49 on the rights of the appellant. According to the appellant the court below has erred in holding that the annulment proceedings in respect of the impugned sale deed were barred in view of S. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The consolidation authorities were neither competent to decide the question of annulment of a sale-deed nor such a question could have been raised by the Receiver before the consolidation authorities. His failure to do so, cannot take away his right to agitate the matter now in proceedings under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. 7. S. 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood on 5-7-1963 when Kehari Singh was declared an insolvent, provided as under : "49, Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area. 7. S. 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood on 5-7-1963 when Kehari Singh was declared an insolvent, provided as under : "49, Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area. for which a declaration has been issued under S. 4, or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." 8. In the light of provisions of this Section, in respect of land lying in an area where S. 4 notification has been issued, the adjudication and declaration rights of tenure-holders have to be made only in the manner decided by consolidation authorities. Both civil and revenue courts have no jurisdiction in respect of those matters in respect of which a proceeding could and ought to have been raised before the consolidation authorities. 9. This naturally prompts me to examine the nature of the proceedings contemplated under the Act before the consolidation courts and those before the Insolvency Judge. It has further to be seen as to when did a right accrue for taking any proceedings before the consolidation courts, if at all, and, if so, whether at that stage any proceedings could have been taken by the Receiver under that Act. It is admitted that S. 4 notification had already been issued when the impugned sale-deed was executed and that the consolidation proceedings came to an end when a notification under S. 52 was issued on 21-3-1964, the transferor having been declared insolvent a few months before i.e. on 5-7-63. 10. Admitted position therefore is that on the date of execution of the impugned sale deed as well as on the date when Kehari Singh was declared an insolvent consolidation proceedings in the area were going on. 11. 10. Admitted position therefore is that on the date of execution of the impugned sale deed as well as on the date when Kehari Singh was declared an insolvent consolidation proceedings in the area were going on. 11. A close examination of S. 49 of the Act shows that it contemplates two types of proceedings i.e. (i) those for declaration or adjudication of rights of tenure-holders and (ii) those proceedings as respects the rights which arise out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could and ought to have been taken under the Act. If any matter falls within the ambit of proceedings of any of these kinds the civil and revenue courts have been debarred from taking cognizance thereof. Therefore, before anyone can plead the bar of Section 49 in any suit it must be ascertained whether the matter comes within the purview of any such proceeding. 12. A perusal of the scheme of the Act will show that after an area comes under consolidation after a notification under S. 4 has been issued certain rights accrue to the authorities to prepare the field book etc. and as a consequence all pending suits and proceedings also are abated. All disputes of title and other rights and interest thereafter can be decided only within the framework of the Act. By the time stage of objections under S. 9 has been reached all questions of right, title or interest of the tenure-holders, be they for declaration of their right or for possession, have to be finally declared or adjudicated upon. After this has been accomplished land has to be consolidated by preparing chaks to be allotted to the tenure-holders entitled to land in accordance with the rights determined earlier and also having regard to the scheme of consolidation i.e. after earmarking land for abadi, public purposes and for roads and water channels etc. These `subsequent proceedings are merely consequent upon the rights determined unto the stage of S. 9 of the Act. 13. section 11-A specifically provides that claim to land, for partition and valuation etc. having once been decided under Section 9 or 10 cannot subsequently be raised by any one ever at a later stage of consolidation proceedings. Thus for determination of right, title or interest, of a tenure-holder in any land within the area under consolidation S. 9 occupies an important water-shed. having once been decided under Section 9 or 10 cannot subsequently be raised by any one ever at a later stage of consolidation proceedings. Thus for determination of right, title or interest, of a tenure-holder in any land within the area under consolidation S. 9 occupies an important water-shed. Beyond this stage such questions cannot at all be raised even during the pendency of remaining consolidation proceedings. 14. Now, in the instant case the insolvent, after obtaining due permission from the S. O. (C) executed the sale-deed on 22-10-1961 which was accordingly given effect to in consolidation records and the names of the transferees were duly recorded. By that time neither the transferor had been declared insolvent nor his property had been vested in the Receiver. The creditor or the Receiver could have no right of agitating any such matter before the consolidation authorities. Apart from this, even if any objection had been filed, the same would have been futile as there was no ground to question the sale. The right to question could be said to have arisen only on 5-7-1963 when the transferor was declared insolvent and his property was vested in the Receiver. Even at that stage the Receiver did not acquire any immediate right in the subject matter of impugned sale but only became entitled to apply for its annulment by treating the property as an asset of the insolvent. It was only `a' contingent right subject only to the decision of the insolvency Court under Section 53. 15. It thus becomes clear from the above discussion that a matter like this cannot be said to be covered by S. 49 of the Act. There had been no declaration or adjudication of the rights in the consolidation proceedings nor any such proceeding could or ought to have been possibly taken by the Receiver as till then no right to do so had accrued to him. 16. It remains undisputed before me that the only court which had the jurisdiction to annul the sale-deed executed by an insolvent is the insolvency Court and no such proceedings could be taken in this regard during consolidation. The Insolvency Court being a court of special jurisdiction it alone had the right to entertain annulment proceeding and consolidation courts could not do so. 17. The Insolvency Court being a court of special jurisdiction it alone had the right to entertain annulment proceeding and consolidation courts could not do so. 17. All that Section 49 of U.P. C. H. Act lays down is that the declarations and adjudications made during consolidation shall be given effect to. It however does not mean that a transaction vitiated on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or the like cannot at all be questioned. All transactions tainted with fraud or misrepresentation etc. have always been frowned upon by the courts and have been set aside. So is the provision contained in Section 53 of the Insolvency Act. If any transfer had been made mala fide and not for valuable consideration the same is liable to be set aside. This could not be done by consolidation authorities. From the above discussion, it follows that S. 49 of the Lt. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would not bar annulment proceedings under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. 18. We have now to consider whether in the present case the sale deed executed by the insolvent was liable to be annulled or not. By the very nature of such transactions, it is not possible to have direct evidence of mala fides or collusion between the parties to the sale deed and the best indicia to determine the true nature of the transfer is always the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties before and after the execution of the sale deed. In this case, admittedly the wife had already filed a suit for recovery of maintenance amount against her husband which had been decreed long before on 30th of April, 1958. Execution proceedings for the sale of the property were pending and the property in dispute was likely to be proceeded against when the insolvent transferred the same on 22nd of October, 1961 where after an application for his insolvency was moved by the wife. The transfer made on 22nd October. 1961 was after obtaining the sanction of the consolidation authorities by which the entire Khata was proposed to be sold in favour of Pyare Lal son of Jagannath resident of Utrauli and Ashok Kumar son of Har Prasad resident of Mahendri in Tahsil Sikandra Rau in District Aligarh. This application was allowed on 9-10-1961 and on 10-10-1961 a suns of Rs. This application was allowed on 9-10-1961 and on 10-10-1961 a suns of Rs. 7370.50 due under the decree was deposited in the executing court. The sale deed was for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and after adjusting a sum of Rs. 7400/- alleged to have been paid in advance for satisfying the decree and Rs. 600/- for meeting the expenses for execution of the sale deed, the balance amount of Rs. 2000/- is shown to have been paid to the transferor in the sale deed. Out of the sure of Rs. 7400/- paid in advance the sum of Rs. 7370.50 appears to have been paid towards the satisfaction of the decree. Admittedly Ashok Kumar son of Har Prasad who happens to be the real brother of his (insolvents) second wife Smt. Gulab Devi, Pyare Lal is said to be friendly with the insolvent. The village Mlahamai Salannatpur to which Ashok Kumar belongs is about 20 Kos i.e. nearly 30 miles away from Village Bambipur where the land in dispute is situated and is nearly 7 miles away from Atrauli to which place Pyare Lal belongs. Admittedly Pyare Lal is money lender and had no cultivation earlier. Although the names of the transferees lead been mutated on the land in question during consolidation, yet there is no evidence regarding purchase of any bullocks etc. by them. There is also no evidence about purchase of any Rehat or the accounts of profit from cultivation on the land in dispute. It is also significant- that there is no direct relationship or other connection between Ashok Kumar and Pyare Lal so as to justify their purchasing the land jointly. There is no indication in the evidence as to how much land was purchased by each of them and what was the contribution made by each of the purchasers towards the sale consideration. Ashok Kumar was admitted is a student at that time and nothing has cone in evidence to show as to how and from where the money for the sale consideration was provided by him. The purchasers claimed that they are in possession over the land and are getting cultivation done over it through hired labour. However, there is no i evidence about this also except oral testimony of Pyare Lal. The purchasers claimed that they are in possession over the land and are getting cultivation done over it through hired labour. However, there is no i evidence about this also except oral testimony of Pyare Lal. It has come in evidence adduced by the receiver that the purchasers do not have any Gher or any other place to keep the cattle or their implements nor they have their residence in the village. The purchaser Pyare Lal has admitted that he lives at Atrauli. According to him it is 4 miles away from the village where the land in question is situate. He claims that cultivation was being done on the land by him but no account of cultivation was kept. He stated that two bullocks were purchased by him and their Rulia should be at his house but none has been filed. No paper regarding purchase of Rahat has been filed. He asserts that a Gher was got constructed by him 8 years ago but no account of the same also is forthcoming. About the sale of produce, he stated that he did not think it necessary to keep the parchase carefully with him. The land is said to have been purchased by him at the instance of his son who contributed the money for the purchase. He first tried to feign ignorance about the dues of Sushila Devi but later on admitted that about 8 or 10 days before the sale he came to know about that. This later statement was made as in the receipt for the payment of Rs. 2400/- as advance, there was a mention of the there obtained by Sushila Devi. From the side of the receiver. Raghunandan Lal, father of Sushila Devi, and one Sri Ram have been examined. Rathunandan Lal has stated that the insolvent has already transferred his entire land and apart from the sale deed in dispute, three or four of her sale deeds have also been executed. All these transfers, according to him, have been made with it view to frustrate the realisation of the decree in favour of his daughter. The purchasers do not have any other land in the village and at the time when the sale deed was executed. Ashok Kumar was still a student and had no capacity to purchase the land for Rs. 10,000/-. The purchasers do not have any other land in the village and at the time when the sale deed was executed. Ashok Kumar was still a student and had no capacity to purchase the land for Rs. 10,000/-. He has also stated that both these persons had full knowledge about the decree passed in favour of his daughter. About the price of the land, he stated that it was worth Rs. 500/- per Kachcha Bigha at the time of the sale. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he himself was prepared to purchase the land sold at the rate of Rs. 500/- per Kaehcha Bigha. Pyare Lal has got nothing in the village in question and there is only one Gher belonging to Kehari Singh and Pyare Lal had nothing to do with the same. The said Gher was about 10 to 20 years old. Similarly P. W. 2 Sri Ram has stated that Kehari Singh continues to remain in possession over the land in question and he had got his own bullocks and other agricultural implements. Pyare Lal and Ashok Kumar have never cultivated the land in question. In the light of all this oral evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it has to be found whether the transfer had not been made in good faith and was not for a valuable consideration. Two significant facts emerge one is about the purchasers who are neither related nor have any connection with each other. 19. Transferee Ashok Kumar is closely related to the transferor being the son of his wife's real brother. There is nothing in the document showing how the sale consideration was paid and how the joint purchasers had contributed the money amongst themselves. There is no evidence to show that the land is being jointly cultivated or they were separately in possession and whether any partition even by mutual consent had taken place and the transferees were in separate possession of their respective portions. The mere fact that after the sale deed had been executed, the names of the transferees were mutated during consolidation proceedings will not, make any difference in this case particularly because the transferor was a willing party to the same. The mere fact that after the sale deed had been executed, the names of the transferees were mutated during consolidation proceedings will not, make any difference in this case particularly because the transferor was a willing party to the same. It is found that the transfer was not in good faith, then there would be every reason for the transferor to cover up the transaction in all possible manner and give it the appearance of a genuine transaction. If for achieving that obtect, mutation is a flowed to take place in favour of the Transferees without any objection by the transferor, those entries would not be material. It will still have to be seen whether in fact the transferees had entered into possession and were actually cultivating the land. The transferee Pyare Lal being a money lender and a person who was maintaining accounts. it is difficult to believe that any income or expenditure from agriculture was not being noted by him in his account books. He has also not filed his accounts in order to show how touch of I he sale consideration had been paid by him. The motive of the transferor is obvious. The decree against him was for Rs. 100/- per month by way of maintenance and that will continue until either of the parties to the decree would be no more. In these circumstances, by paying the amount due on a particular date, the transferor could always frustrate the future liability under the decree and this is precisely what appears to have been done in this case. After payment of Rs. 7370.50, the execution would stand fully satisfied and the liability of the judgment debtor would continue only in respect of the amount that may fall due subsequently payment of such amount could be avoided by him by transferring all his properties in the meanwhile. 20. In this case, the transferees do not deny that they had notice of the previously existing decree against their transferor. It must have been sufficient to put them on guard to find out us to what was the nature of the decree and whether the transferor was acting in a manner which was not fair and upright. It appears that no such effort was made. It must have been sufficient to put them on guard to find out us to what was the nature of the decree and whether the transferor was acting in a manner which was not fair and upright. It appears that no such effort was made. There also does not appear to be any reason why a money lender would be interested in purchasing agricultural land 7 or 8 miles away from his place of residence, particularly when he had no earlier experience of cultivation. The other transferee who admittedly was a student at that time would have no independent means to purchase the property and being closely related with the transferor, a genuine doubt is cast on his bona fides. The subsequent conduct as well as the circumstances of the case clearly point out that the transaction of sale in favour of the transferees was not in good faith. As far as the other question of valuable consideration is concerned, it is true that it should not necessarily be equivalent to the market value of the property that is transferred but at the same time the sale consideration should not also be merely illusory. It is difficult to conceive that 33 Bigha land was transferred for a mere Rs. 10.000/-. Again it also appears unbelievable that the entire expenses of executing the sale deed should have been borne by the transferor himself for which a sum of Rs. 600/- is said to have been given in advance. Normally the practice is that such expenses are borne only by the transferees and not by the transferor unless the transaction though ostensibly of sale, is in fact a transaction of securing the sale consideration as a loan. The lower appellate court has upset the finding of the Insolvency Judge merely on the ground that Ram Prasad had admitted that he was not present at the time when the impugned sale deed was executed. His mere absence at that time does not mean that his entire evidence has to be discarded. May be, his statement that only Rs. 2,000/- were paid at the time of registration and that too had been taken back later on may not be wholly true but this cannot render his entire evidence as unbelievable. His mere absence at that time does not mean that his entire evidence has to be discarded. May be, his statement that only Rs. 2,000/- were paid at the time of registration and that too had been taken back later on may not be wholly true but this cannot render his entire evidence as unbelievable. Whether or not this small sum of money remained with the transferor is not very material but his remaining statement that the sale deed was never acted upon and it remained in possession of the transferor has to be given due weight. No cogent reason has been assigned by the court below to disregard the entire statement of this witness. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire evidence on the record, I am of the view that the lower appellate court has wrongly discarded the evidence of the Receiver and was not right in upsetting the finding of the Insolvency judge on this question. 21. Under the circumstances, it stands proved that neither the proceedings under S. 53 were hit by S. 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act nor the sale deed can be said to have been executed in good faith and for valuable consideration. 22. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed with costs throughout.