Judgment :- 1. This Application has been filed by the Official Assignee under Sections 7 and 68(1)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, hereinafter called ‘the Act’ praying to grant an order declaring that the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the insolvent by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 11. 1995 and the subsequent reallotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent by order dated 111. 1995 are not valid and are void against the Official Assignee and for further declaration that the schedule mentioned property covered under the original allotment by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board vested with the official Assignee. The Official Assignee further sought the permission of the Court to sell the said property in public auction. .2. The 1st respondent herein was adjudicated as an insolvent in his own petition by this Court on 24. 1996. At the commencement of the insolvency the 1st respondent was found residing in the schedule property which is premises bearing Door No. 387, Plot No. 412, N.S.K. Nagar, 21st Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106. This property without the superstructure was originally allotted to the insolvent by the 3rd respondent-Board in the year 1984 and according to the insolvent, he put up a building consisting of 3 floors (ground +2 floors) on the lands in the year 1988. Though the entire cost was paid to the Board, the sale deed is yet to be executed in favour of the insolvent. In his examination, the insolvent deposed that for a meager sum of Rs.22,088/-, one Krupakaran, the 2nd respondent herein coerced the insolvent to transfer the ownership in his name (2nd respondent). Thereafter the 2nd respondent approached the Board to cancel the original allotment made in the year 1984 in favour of the 1st respondent/insolvent and to re-allot the same in favour of 2nd respondent. The further case of the insolvent is that he was residing in that house and he was threatened by 2nd respondent to deliver vacant possession. Therefore, the insolvent requested the Official Assignee to seal the premises. The staff of the Official Assignee could not seal the premises as the 2nd respondent objected to by contending that he was the owner of the premises. It is reported that the doors which were in existence in the premises at the time of taking inventory on 24. 1996 were found to be removed on 5. The staff of the Official Assignee could not seal the premises as the 2nd respondent objected to by contending that he was the owner of the premises. It is reported that the doors which were in existence in the premises at the time of taking inventory on 24. 1996 were found to be removed on 5. 1996 when the staff of the Official Assignee went to the premises to seal the premises. 3. The Official Assignee found that the schedule mentioned property was allotted by the 3rd respondent-Board in favour of the insolvent on 110. 1984 and the allotment was cancelled on 1,11.1995 and the same was realloted to the second respondent on 111. 1995. Therefore the official Assignee invoking Section 7 of the Act filed, the above Application for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel and filed a counter affidavit. 5. The Slum Clearance Board has also filed a counter supporting the 2nd respondent. A learned Judge of this Court by order dated 29. 1997 allowed Application No.42/1997 as prayed for against which 2nd respondent filed an Appeal in O.S.A. No.37/1998. The Division Bench by order dated 112. 1999 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29. 1997 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to the 2nd respondent herein to adduce further evidence to substantiate his claim that he was the owner of the property. 6. On remand, full opportunities were given to all the parties to file additional pleadings and evidence to prove their case. .7. It is stated by the 2nd respondent that the Application filed by the Official Assignee .under Section 7 of the Act is not maintainable as the property is not the property of the insolvent within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act and the same did not vest with the Official Assignee in terms of Section 17, of the Act. It is his case that he derived valid title by means of an independent order of allotment dated 111. 1995 by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that the insolvent was very much aware that the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board cancelled the allotment order dated 11. 1995 by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that the insolvent was very much aware that the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board cancelled the allotment order dated 11. 1995 and re-allotted the same in favour of the 2nd respondent on 111. 1995. No steps were taken by the insolvent to challenge the cancellation as well as reallotment. 8. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent that the insolvent executed an unregistered deed on 212. 1998 in favour of the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board cancelled the allotment made in favour of the insolvent on 11. 1995 for having violated the condition of lease- cum -sale deed and thereafter the schedule property was allotted, to the 2nd respondent by order dated 111. 1995. Only When the officials of the Official Assignee attempted to seal the property, he came to know about the insolvency proceedings. He filed an Application in A. Nos.191 and 192 of 1996 to implead him as a party in the above I.P., and sought for an order of injunction not to disturb his possession. This Court-dismissed the Application Nos.191 and 192 of 1996. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Application Nos.191 and 192 of 1996, the 2nd respondent filed O.S.A. Nos.260 and 261 of 1996 and the same is pending with an order of injunction in favour of the 2nd respondent. An offer was made by the 2nd respondent to purchase the property as mentioned by him in his memo filed before the Official Assignee on 22. 1997. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the Application. .9. In their counter, the Secretary in-charge of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board stated that on enquiry and inspection, it was discovered that the allottee, i.e., the 1st respondent was not residing in the said property and he permitted a stranger to occupy the property. Therefore the allotment order dated 118. 1984 was cancelled on 11. 1995 and on an Application made by the 2nd respondent it was reallotted to him by order dated 111. 1995. The cancellation of allotment made by the Board is under the powers vested on the Board by the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1972, and therefore the same cannot be called as void. 1995 and on an Application made by the 2nd respondent it was reallotted to him by order dated 111. 1995. The cancellation of allotment made by the Board is under the powers vested on the Board by the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1972, and therefore the same cannot be called as void. It is further stated in the counter that no title was passed on to the insolvent as per the lease- cum sale agreement and the Board continued to be the owner of the property. 10. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Official Assignee, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-insolvent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. I have also perused the documents and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions. .11. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant/Official Assignee submitted that an allotment order dated 110. 1984 was made by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in favour of the insolvent on 119. 1984 and at lease- cum -sale agreement was also entered into between the insolvent and the Board. Relying on the payment receipts made by the insolvent (Ex.P-8) the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the entire cost has been paid by the insolvent on 22. 1993 and in such circumstances the insolvent has obtained a valid right to get a sale deed from the Board which is only a formality and the Board has no other option except to execute a sale deed in favour of the insolvent. As the adjudication was made by this Court adjudicating the 1st respondent as insolvent on 24. 1996, the schedule property vested with the Official Assignee and therefore the cancellation order dated 11. 1995 and the reallotment order dated 111. 1995 are void insofar as the Official Assignee is concerned. As the adjudication was made by this Court adjudicating the 1st respondent as insolvent on 24. 1996, the schedule property vested with the Official Assignee and therefore the cancellation order dated 11. 1995 and the reallotment order dated 111. 1995 are void insofar as the Official Assignee is concerned. The learned Senior Counsel further referred to the payment receipts of the Water Board issued in favour of the insolvent (Exs.P-10 and P-22), the Plan (Ex.P-11), the No Objection Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to the insolvent for putting up superstructure on the lands allotted to him (Ex.P-13), the Corporation tax receipts, to show that property tax was paid by the insolvent for the period 1989-90, to 1994-95 (Ex.P-14) and the Plan showing the additional construction (Ex.P-25), submitted that all along the insolvent had been in possession of the property after putting up the entire superstructure and he had been forcibly removed from his property by the 2nd respondent. Therefore the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent had no rights to be in possession of the property and the property is to be sold, in public auction by the Official Assignee. The learned Senior Counsel further relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 112. 1971 made in A. No.589/1971 in I.P. No.39/1979 to submit that the lessee of a lease- cum -sale agreement acquires an interest in the property and he is entitled to get a conveyance from the Board on his fulfilment of the obligations undertaken by him and such a right in a property, which on the adjudication of lessee, vest with the Official Assignee. .12. Per contra , the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently contended that the schedule property is not the property of the insolvent as per Section 2(e) of the Act and therefore it will not vest with the Official Assignee under Section 17 of the Act. The learned counsel contended that until the lease- cum -sale agreement culminates into a sale deed, the insolvent is only a lessee and the Board alone is the owner of the property. He relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Rangasamy, K. v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (2) CTC 81 , in this regard. He relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Rangasamy, K. v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (2) CTC 81 , in this regard. The learned counsel further submitted that this Application is not maintainable under Section 7 of the Act as under Section 7, this Court can decide all the questions of priorities only and not the title interest of 3rd parties. For this proposition he relied on a Division Bench of this Court reported in Abdul Shukoor v. Official Assignee, Madras , AIR (36) 1949 Mad. 289. The learned counsel further added that the property contemplated under the Act should be divisible in nature amongst the creditors under Section 52 of the Act and if it is not divisible, the same does not come within the jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Privy Council reported in Sat Narain v. Behari Lai, 1925 P.C. 18. The learned counsel while referring to Section 36(5) of the Act submitted that only when the person admits that he has been in possession of any property belonging to the insolvent, the Official Assignee can ask for delivery and not in a case where the title of the insolvent is denied. He further took me to Section 51 and Section 56 of the Act and submitted that in view of these provisions, the present Application could not be maintained. The learned, counsel for the 2nd respondent further urged that the cancellation of allotment and the subsequent reallotment of the Board were all under its powers, exercisable under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 and under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (Control and Management of Properties) Rules, 1971 and the same could not be agitated before the Insolvency Court as Section 65 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of all Civil Courts. The learned counsel further drew my attention to O.S. No.10464/92 filed by the insolvent on the file of the 7th Asst. City Civil Court against the Board for a mandatory injunction directing the Board officials to receive the sale consideration towards the Plot allotted to him and to execute the sale deed in his favour and submitted that this suit was dismissed on 18. City Civil Court against the Board for a mandatory injunction directing the Board officials to receive the sale consideration towards the Plot allotted to him and to execute the sale deed in his favour and submitted that this suit was dismissed on 18. 1993 as not pressed by the insolvent and therefore the insolvent and consequently the Official Assignee could not ask for a sale deed from the Board. 13. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations. 14. The facts which are not in dispute are: (1) the 1st respondent was adjudicated as insolvent on his own Petition by order dated 24. 1996 in I.P. No.33/1996; (2) The insolvent in I.P. No.33/1996 mentioned that the schedule property was allotted to him by the Board and the Board is yet to execute the sale deed though the entire cost was already paid; (3) In Annexure ‘C’ of the Petition, the schedule property was not shown as one of the assets of the insolvent by the insolvent; (4) when examined on 24. 19 96, the insolvent admitted that he was residing in the property and he had to hand over possession to 2nd respondent on or before 24. 1996. On 5. 1996 the insolvent informed the Official Assignee that he has been forced by the 2nd respondent to deliver vacant possession and requested the Official Assignee to seal the premises; (6) when the premises was sought to be sealed, obstruction was put up by the 2nd respondent and it was also found that the doors which were intact on 24. 1996 were found to be removed; (7) this property was allotted to insolvent by the Board on 110. 1984 and the same was subsequently cancelled on 11. 1995; and (8)thereafter it was reallotted to the 2nd respondent on 111. 1995. 15. The facts which are in dispute are — .(l) Who constructed the superstructure over the schedule property ? .(2) How the doors have been removed ? .(3) Whether the insolvent or the 2nd respondent was in continuous possession of the property and .(4) whether the insolvent was forcibly evicted by the 2nd respondent ? 16. The legal questions that arise for consideration are: .(l) Whether the schedule property is the property of the insolvent ? .(2) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to decide the issues involved in this Application ? 17. 16. The legal questions that arise for consideration are: .(l) Whether the schedule property is the property of the insolvent ? .(2) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to decide the issues involved in this Application ? 17. First let me consider the question as to the ownership and title of the petition schedule property. .18. Admittedly the property was allotted to the insolvent and a lease- cum -sale agreement was executed between the insolvent and the Board. It is also not in dispute that the Board did not execute the sale deed in favour of the insolvent even though the entire cost has been paid. In such circumstances, what is the right that has been accrued to the insolvent ? To decide this question, the unreported judgment of this Court dated 112. 1971 (cited supra) could be conveniently referred to. In the above judgment the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows: .“6. On a construction of the terms of the lease- cum -sale agreement, I am of the opinion that the lessee acquires an interest in the property and is entitled to get a Conveyance from the Housing Board on his fulfilment of the obligations undertaken by him, that this right is in the nature of a right to get a sale and that such a right is a property which, on the adjudication of the lessee, vests in the Official Assignee. The applicant is therefore not entitled to the declaration which he has asked in this application viz., that the premises covered by the agreement is not property that will vest in the official Assignee.” 19. From the above it is very clear that the lessee acquires an interest in the property and he is entitled to get the conveyance and this right is in the nature of a right to get a sale deed and such a right is a property which will vest with the Official Assignee on the adjudication of the lessee. 20. The above order dated 112. 1971 in Application No.589/1971 in O.P. No.39/1970, was challenged before the Division Bench in O.S.A. No.2/1972 and the Division Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge by holding that the lessee’s rights are valuable rights which could well be treated as property, which on adjudication would vest with the Official Assignee. .21. 20. The above order dated 112. 1971 in Application No.589/1971 in O.P. No.39/1970, was challenged before the Division Bench in O.S.A. No.2/1972 and the Division Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge by holding that the lessee’s rights are valuable rights which could well be treated as property, which on adjudication would vest with the Official Assignee. .21. Therefore the insolvent has certainly got a right as a lessee under a lease- cum sale agreement executed between him and the Slum Clearance Board. But in the present case, the 1st respondent was adjudicated as insolvent on 24. 1996, but the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board cancelled the allotment itself on 11. 1995 and thereafter reallotted the same to the 2nd respondent by entering into a fresh lease- cum -sale agreement. This fact was very much known to the insolvent but he did not take any steps in this regard till 24. 1996. In view of the subsequent cancellation and the consequential reallotment, the facts in the present case are totally different from the facts of the case decided by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 112. 1971 (cited supra). 22. The main prayer in this Application is to declare that the cancellation of the original allotment made in favour of the insolvent by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and the subsequent reallotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent are void against the Official Assignee and also for consequential declaration that the original allotment stands restored and, the property vests with the Official Assignee. 23. This poses a difficulty as the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board made these allotments by exercising the powers under the statute and until they are set aside, the orders will stand good. Further the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971, is also to be gone into to find out whether the cancellation and the reallotment are validly made. It is also not in dispute that there is a bar of Civil Court’s jurisdiction under Section 65 of the said Act in resp ect of any matter which the prescribed authority under the Act determined. 24. In the above context the scope of Section 7 of the Act under which this Application has been filed is also to be gone into. 25. Section 7 of the Act reads as under: “7 . 24. In the above context the scope of Section 7 of the Act under which this Application has been filed is also to be gone into. 25. Section 7 of the Act reads as under: “7 . Power of Court to decide all questions arising in insolvency.— Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court shall have full power to decide all questions of priorities, and all other questions whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may arise in any case of insolvency coming within the cognizance of the Court, or which the Court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any such case: Provided that, unless all the parties otherwise agree, the power hereby given shall, for the purpose of deciding any matter arising under Section 36, be exercised only in the manner and to the extent provided in that Section.” 26. Section 7 of the Act empowers the insolvency Court to decide all questions of priorities for the purpose of distribution of properties in any such case and if all the parties otherwise agree, the power given shall be exercised only in the manner and to the extent provided under Section 36 of the Act. 27. This Section 7 is different from Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, which empowers the Court to decide all questions whether of title or priority or of any nature whatsoever and whether involving matters of fact and law for distribution of property in any such case. Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act is narrower than Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, in the sense that it does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to go into the question of title. In such a case the remedy of Official Assignee will not be to file an Application under Section 7 of the Act but to take other appropriate legal proceedings which includes a Suit. Further remedy under Section 7 of the Act is a discretionary remedy and it is open to the Court in the exercise of its discretion to refer the Official Assignee to a regular Suit or other legal proceedings. 28. Further remedy under Section 7 of the Act is a discretionary remedy and it is open to the Court in the exercise of its discretion to refer the Official Assignee to a regular Suit or other legal proceedings. 28. Under Section 36(5) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act if the Official Assignee on his examination of any person finds that such person admits that he has in his possession any property belonging to the insolvent, then the Court may order him to deliver to the Official Assignee that property. When the person does not admit that the property belonging to the insolvent then the Official Assignee cannot resort to filing an Application under Section 7 of the Act seeking delivery. 29. In Abdul Shukoor v. Official Assignee, Madras , AIR (36) 1949 Mad.289 (cited supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that Section 7 of the Act will not apply to matters totally unrelated to the administration of the estate of the insolvent and distribution of its assets among the creditors and it will not apply to disputes arising between 3rd parties simply because the disputes are in a remote way connected with insolvency proceedings. 30. Further, the scheme of the Act shows that the Official Assignee is entitled to proceed by way of motion in those cases he has a money claim against a stranger to the insolvency and it is then for the Courts to say whether the matter is one which it is reasonable, having regard to the convenience of all concerned to deal with on a motion or whether it should be dealt with in a regular Suit. Only simple cases capable of easy and speedy disposal should be so dealt with. Therefore if the matter, is complicated involving question of law and fact with regard to title and ownership, in the discretion of the Court, the same may have to be relegated to be agitated and adjudicated before the appropriate forum. 31. In the light of the foregoing discussion in respect of fact and law, if the present case is considered, the following questions arise for consideration to be decided by this Court: .(l) Whether the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance. Board has validly cancelled the original allotment order dated 110. 1984 ? .(2) Whether the superstructure was put up by the insolvent or by the 2nd respondent ? Board has validly cancelled the original allotment order dated 110. 1984 ? .(2) Whether the superstructure was put up by the insolvent or by the 2nd respondent ? .(3) Whether the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has correctly re-allotted the Plot to the 2nd respondent ? .(4) In such circumstances, who has better title over the property, i.e., the insolvent, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and the 2nd respondent ? 32. Only if the above questions are decided, further course of action could be taken in the Insolvency Court. Considering the fact that the scope of Section 7 is narrower and it is only a discretion conferred on this Court to decide the questions, Arising in an Application filed under Section 7 of the Act, I am of the considered view that the Official Assignee instead of filing this Application under Section 7 of the Act should approach forum to agitate the issues in accordance with the law by stepping into the shoes of the insolvent. Further, the issue involved in the above case is a complicated case of question of law and fact and therefore it is advisable to agitate the issue only before the competent legal forum instead of agitating this Application under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. 33. Hence the above Application is dismissed with liberty to agitate all the issues before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. No costs.