Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3025 (MAD)

R. Venkatesh v. Kalliammal

2012-07-13

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The unsuccessful first defendant is the appellant. The predecessors in title of the respondents 1 to 6 herein namely, Kalliammal and Balasubramaniam filed the suit O.S.No.413 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for declaration that the sale conducted by the Official Receiver in respect of the suit property in IP No.7 of 87 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property having a total extent of 849 sq.ft of land and building, belonged to a partnership firm known as 'Parameshwari Hall' represented by its partners O.Jayaraman, J.Venkatraman and J.Kumarvavelu. The said partnership firm sold the northern side block of the suit property to one P.Balaji under Ex.A3, dated 12.09.1986 and southern side block consisting of 363 sq.ft to one P.Gopal under Ex.A5 on the same date. By reason of the sales in favour of Gopal and Balaji, certain acts of insolvency alleged to have been committed by the partnership firm, the creditors of the partnership firm filed I.P.No.7 of 1987 to adjudge the partnership firm and its partners as 'insolvent'. In that petition, Gopal and Balaji were also impleaded as respondents and they did not prosecute the case and by order, dated 15.04.1994, the partnership firm and its partners were adjudged 'insolvent' in I.P.No.7 of 1987. Meanwhile, the said Balaji, who purchased the property under Ex.A3 sold the said extent under Ex.A2 to one Krishnamoorthy and from Krishnamoorthy, Ramakrishnan, the husband of the first plaintiff Kaliammal purchased that property under Ex.A1, dated 04.03.1993. Similarly, from Gopal, the first plaintiff purchased the southern side block consisting of 363 sq.ft. of land and building under Ex.A4, dated 4.3.1993. Therefore, Ramakrishnan and Kalliammal became the absolute owners of the entire extent of 849 sq.ft. and they are husband and wife and after the death of Ramakrishnan, the properties were enjoyed by Kalliammal and Balasubramanim as owners. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the bona fide purchasers for value and they are not aware of the pendency of I.P proceedings and they purchased the property on 04.03.1993 before the date of adjudication of their vendors as 'insolvents' and therefore, their sale cannot be impeached. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the bona fide purchasers for value and they are not aware of the pendency of I.P proceedings and they purchased the property on 04.03.1993 before the date of adjudication of their vendors as 'insolvents' and therefore, their sale cannot be impeached. It is their further case that the Official Receiver filed I.A.No.473 of 2002 under sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to annual the sale deeds, dated 12.09.1986, Exs.A3 and A5 in favour of Gopal and Balaji. In that application also, Gopal and Balaji were made as parties and the plaintiffs, who were the subsequent purchasers were not made as parties and the sales were annulled in I.A.No.473 of 2002 and therefore, the Official Receiver sold the property in public auction and the same was purchased by the appellant herein and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration that auction sale by the Official Receiver in favour of the appellant herein in I.P.No.7 of 1983 was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. 4. The first defendant/appellant contested the suit stating I.P.No.7 of 87 was filed on 10.12.1986 within three months from the date of Exs.A3 and A5, namely 12.09.1986 and in that petition, it was stated that the insolvents, namely the vendors of Gopal and Balaji under Exs.A3 and A5 committed acts of insolvency by selling the property with an intention to defeat the creditors. In that petition, Gopal and Balaji were parties and they did not contest the proceedings and the debtors, namely the owners of the property were adjudged as 'insolvents' by order, dated 15.04.1994 under Ex.B2 and I.P.No.7 of 87 was filed by the creditors on 10.12.1996 and by virtue of the provision of 28(7) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the order of adjudication relates back to the date of filing of the petition, namely 10.12.1986 and therefore, any sale that took place thereafter, will not bind the Official Receiver and I.P.No.7 of 1987 was filed only on the basis that the sales in favour of the Gopal and Balaji were made with an intention to defeat the rights of the creditors and therefore, those sales are void and hence, an application was filed by the Official Receiver in I.A.No.473 of 2002 for annulling the sale deeds under sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and that petition was allowed and the sales in favour of Balaji and Gopal, dated 12.09.1986 under Exs.A3 and A5 were annulled and hence, the plaintiffs, who claim right from them, cannot have any independent right or title over the property and therefore, the property vested with the Official Receiver after the annulment of sales in favour of Gopal and Balaji and in exercise of the rights conferred on the Official Receiver, the Official Receiver sold the property in public auction in favour of the appellant/1st defendant and hence, the appellant/1st defendant became the owner of the property and the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the same. 5. 5. The trial court decreed the suit holding that in I.A.No.473 of 2002, the plaintiffs and the subsequent purchasers, namely Krishnamoorthy were not made parties and the sales in favour of Gopal and Balaji under Exs.A3 and A5 were not void and the sales were only voidable and till such sales were annulled by the court, the purchasers had valid title to the properties and before the sales were annulled, the said persons, Gopal and Balaji sold the properties to the plaintiffs under Exs.A1, A2 and A4 and therefore, in the absence of impleading the subsequent purchasers in the annul proceedings taken by Official Receiver, that proceedings are not binding on the plaintiffs and before passing the order of annulment, the properties became the property of the plaintiffs and therefore, the properties did not vest with the Official Receiver and therefore, the Official Receiver has no right to sell the property in public auction and therefore, the declaration prayer sought for by the plaintiffs is maintainable and the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and decreed the suit as prayed for. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant filed A.S.No.142 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and the Official Receiver also filed appeal in A.S.No. of 2007 and the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, after considering the various provisions of Provincial Insolvency Act and after relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our High Court, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that the annul proceeding initiated by the Official Receiver without impleading the plaintiffs will not bind the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs purchased the suit property much earlier to the order of adjudication and until, the sale deeds are set aside by making the purchasers as parties to the proceedings, the order of annulment will not bind the plaintiffs and therefore, the auction sale is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the above second appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the above second appeal. 7. Though, the appellants raised six substantials questions law, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable, in view of section 4 of Provincial Insolvency Act and without challenging the annulment order passed in I.A.No.473 of 2002 in I.P.No.7 of 1987 whereby the sales in favour of Gopal and Balaji were annulled, the present suit for declaration that the auction sale conducted by the Official Receiver is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Hence, the following substantial questions of law are framed for adjudication in the second appeal. “1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable in view of section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that the sale by Official Receiver is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, without setting aside the order of annulment made in I.A.No.473 of 2002 in I.P.No.7 of 1987? 8. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that having regard to section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the Insolvent Court has got jurisdiction to decide all the matters and issue and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the civil court challenging the order of the Official Receiver in selling the property of insolvent in public auction is not maintainable and the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that admittedly, I.P.No.7 of 1987 was filed to adjudge the debtors as 'insolvents' on the ground of act of insolvency committed by them in selling the property to Balaji and Gopal with an intention to defeat the rights of the creditors and that was accepted and the order of adjudication was passed on 15.04.1994 and once an order of adjudication was passed, by virtue of section 28(7) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, it relates back to the date of presentation of the petition, namely 10.12.1986 and as per section 53 of the Act, any transfer of property not being a transfer made before and in consideration of marriage or made in favour of a purchaser or incumbranacer in good faith and for valuable consideration shall, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent on the petition presented within two years after the date of the transfer, be voidable as against the receiver and may be annulled by the court and in this case, the sales in favour of Balaji and Gopal under Exs.A3 and A5 are dated 12.09.1986 and the insolvency petition was filed on 10.12.1986. Therefore, as per section 53 of the said Act, sales under Exs.A3 and A5 are voidable as against the Official Receiver and that was rightly annulled by the insolvency court on the application filed by the Official Receiver in I.A.No.473 of 2002 and the order of annulment was passed after opportunity was given to the purchasers under Exs.A3 and A5, namely the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs are bound by the same and in the absence of any order setting aside the annulment by the plaintiffs, in the manner known to law, the plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge the subsequent sale by the Official Receiver of the insolvent property, as after the order of adjudication, the property of the insolvent vested with the Official Receiver and in exercise of that power conferred on him by the Act, the Official Receiver sold the property in public auction and that was purchased by the appellant and hence, the plaintiffs are bound by the sale and without appreciating the same, the courts below erred in decreeing the suit. 9. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:- 1. 9. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:- 1. AIR 1967 SC 1780 in the case of Hans Raj vs. Rattan Chand. 2. AIR 1928 Mad. 735 (FB) in the case of Official Assignee, Madras vs. Ramachandra Aiyar and others. 10. On the other hand, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit is not barred under section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Admittedly, the sales in favour of Balaji and Gopal under Exs.A3 and A5 are only voidable and not void as per the section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and till the sales are avoided, the purchasers under Exs.A3 and A5 had valid title to the property and admittedly, before the annulment of sales in favour of Balaji and Gopal under Exs.A3 and A5, they sold the property to the plaintiffs under Exs.A1 and A2 and A4 and hence, the plaintiffs got absolute title to the suit properties and the sales in favour of the plaintiffs were before the date of order of adjudication and their sales are protected under section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, as they are the bona-fide purchasers for value without notice of insolvency. No evidence was adduced by the appellant to the effect that the plaintiffs are aware of the pendency of the insolvency proceedings and at the time of filing the application in I.A.No.473 of 2002, the plaintiffs have purchased the property under Exs.A1, A2 and A4 and therefore, without impleading them, the proceedings initiated by the Official Receiver to annul the sales under Exs.A3 and A5 are not binding on the respondents 1 to 6 and considering all these aspects, the courts below rightly held that the order of annulment of the sales under Exs.A3 and A5 are not valid and binding on the respondents and consequently, the appellant cannot claim title to the suit property as Official Receiver had no right to sell the property. He further submitted that section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to the Insolvency Court to deal with all the matters and in respect of transfers, which are voidable as per the provision of section 53 of the Act, section 4 will not be applicable and that has been held so in the judgment reported in AIR 1977 SC 2202 in the case of Johrilal Soni vs. Smt.Bhanwari Bai. He further submitted that the annulment proceedings taken by the Official Receiver to annul the sales under Exs.A3 and A5 was also barred by limitation. 11. Admittedly, the order of adjudication is dated 15.04.1994 and eight years thereafter, I.A.No.473 of 2002 was filed to annul the sale deeds and as per the Article 137 of the Limitation Act, proceedings ought to have been initiated within 3 years from the date of order of adjudication and admittedly, the annulment proceedings were initiated only after eight years and hence, the annulment proceeding was clearly time barred and therefore, the order of annulment is also not valid and when an order of annulment is not valid, that can be ignored and hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the sale conducted by the Official Receiver is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs is sustainable in law and the courts below rightly decreed the suit. He further relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1956 Mad. 19 , in the case of M.O.Abdul Rahim Rowther and others vs. Swaminatha Odayar and others, AIR 1935 Allahabad 671 in the case of Amir Ahamad vs. Syed Hasa and (2003)11 SCC 699, in the case of Sankar Ram & Co., vs. Kasi Naiackaser and others, in support of his contention. 12. Therefore, we will have to see whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiffs and whether the suit is maintainable without setting the order of annulment made in I.A.No.473 of 2002. 13. As stated supra, I.P.No.7 of 1987 was filed on 10.12.1986 and as per the contents of I.P.No.7 of 1987, the acts of insolvency committed by the insolvent are the sales in favour of Balaji and Gopal under Exs.A3 and A5. The order of adjudication was passed on 15.04.1994 under Ex.A2. 13. As stated supra, I.P.No.7 of 1987 was filed on 10.12.1986 and as per the contents of I.P.No.7 of 1987, the acts of insolvency committed by the insolvent are the sales in favour of Balaji and Gopal under Exs.A3 and A5. The order of adjudication was passed on 15.04.1994 under Ex.A2. Therefore, as per section 28(7) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the order of adjudication relates back to the date of petition. As per section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, any transfer effected within two years before the date of presentation of the application to adjudge any person as 'insolvent', such transfer shall be voidable as against the Official Receiver, if the transfer is not being made before and in consideration of marriage or made in favour of a purchaser of incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration. Therefore, as per section 53 of the Act, if any petition is filed within two years from the date of transfer to declare the transferor as 'insolvent' and if the transferor is adjudged as 'insolvent', the transaction is voidable as against the Official Receiver. This section has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme in the judgment reported in AIR 1977 SC 2202 = (1977)4 SCC 459 , in the case of Johrilal Soni vs. Smt.Bhanwari Bai as follows:- “4. We now proceed to interpret the provisions of Section 4 itself, the relevant part of which may be extracted thus: “4. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court shall have full power to decide all questions whether of title or priority, or of any nature whatsoever, and whether involving matters of law or of 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.” It would be seen that the section has been couched in the widest possible terms and confers complete and full powers on the Insolvency Court to decide all questions of title or priority, or of any nature whatsoever, which may arise in any case of insolvency. The only restriction which is contained in Section 4 is that these powers are subject to the other provisions of the Act. The only restriction which is contained in Section 4 is that these powers are subject to the other provisions of the Act. In other words, the position is that where any other section of the Act contains a provision which either runs counter to Section 4 or expressly excludes the application of Section 4, to that extent Section 4 would become inapplicable. Counsel for the respondent strongly relied on the provision of Section 53 which runs thus: “53. 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.” It was submitted that the effect of Section 53 of the Act clearly is that it bars the jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court to determine the validity of any transfer made beyond two years of the transferor being adjudged insolvent. It is no doubt true that the words “within two years after the date of the transfer being voidable as against the receiver” does fix a time-limit within which the transfer could be annulled by the Court. But a plain construction of Section 53 would manifestly indicate that the words “within two years after the date, be voidable as against the receiver, and shall be annulled by the Court” clearly connote that only those transfers are excepted from the jurisdiction of the Court which are voidable. The section has, therefore, made a clear distinction between void and voidable transfers — a distinction which is well-known to law. A void transfer is no transfer at all and is completely destitute of any legal effect: it is a nullity and does not pass any title at all. For instance, where a transfer is nominal, sham or fictitious, the title remains with the transferor and so does the possession and nothing passes to the transferee. It is manifest, therefore, that such a transfer is no transfer in the eye of the law. Such transfers, therefore, clearly fall beyond the purview of Section 53 of the Act which refers only to transfers which are voidable. It is manifest, therefore, that such a transfer is no transfer in the eye of the law. Such transfers, therefore, clearly fall beyond the purview of Section 53 of the Act which refers only to transfers which are voidable. It is well settled that a voidable transfer is otherwise a valid transaction and continues to be good until it is avoided by the party aggrieved. For instance, transfers executed by the transferor to delay or defraud his creditors may be avoided under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Similarly transfers made under coercion, fraud or undue influence may be avoided by the party defrauded. It is only such transfers which, if they take place beyond two years of the date of transfer, cannot be enquired into by the Court by virtue of Section 53 of the Act. This appears to us to be the plain and simple interpretation of the combined reading of Sections 4 and 53 of The Act. Indeed if a different interpretation is given, it will render the entire object of the section nugatory, because the Court would be powerless to set at naught transfers which are patently void, merely because they had been made at a particular point of time.” 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also relied on the Full Judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1949 Bom 129,[FB] in the case of Padamsi Premchand Vs. Laxman Vishnu Deshpande, wherein it is held as follows:- 7. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Padamsi Premchand v. Laxman Vishnu Deshpande has taken the same view, which we have taken. In that case, and which we feel is based on a correct and true interpretation of Sections 4 and 53 of the Act, after considering the history of the Act, Chagla, C.J., speaking for the Court observed as follows: “It is perfectly true that Section 4 is merely declaratory of the jurisdiction of the insolvency Court… Therefore, Mr. Desai is right when he says that if a transaction falls within the ambit of Section 53, then it can only be challenged provided the conditions laid down in that section are satisfied. Desai is right when he says that if a transaction falls within the ambit of Section 53, then it can only be challenged provided the conditions laid down in that section are satisfied. In our opinion transactions which are challenged on the ground of their being fictitious or nominal do not fall within the ambit of Section 53, then Section 4 is wide enough to confer upon the Insolvency Court jurisdiction to decide whether these transactions were in fact nominal or fictitious.” We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view expressed by Chagla, C.J., in the aforesaid decision. ' Therefore, from the above judgment, it has been made clear that as per section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, voidable transactions are exempted from the jurisdiction of the court and it is clearly spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words:- “A plain construction of Section 53 would manifestly indicate that the words “within two years after the date, be voidable as against the receiver, and shall be annulled by the Court” clearly connote that only those transfers are excepted from the jurisdiction of the court which are voidable.” 15. Further, the Bombay High court has held that section 4 is merely declaratory of the jurisdiction of the insolvency court and if a transaction falls within the ambit of section 53, then it can be challenged provided the conditions laid down in that section are satisfied and the transactions, which are challenged on the ground of sham and nominal do not fall within the ambit of section 53 and in that case, section is wide enough to confer upon the insolvency court jurisdiction to decide whether these transactions were in fact nominal or fictitious. The view expressed by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above. The view expressed by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above. Therefore, the judgment rendered in AIR 1977 SC 2202 in the case of Johrilal Soni vs. Smt.Bhanwari Bai, gives the complete answer to the substantial question of law No.1 raised by the appellant that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the sales in favour of the vendors of the plaintiffs are only voidable and in respect of those transactions, Insolvency Court cannot have exclusive jurisdiction. Hence, the 1st question law is answered against the appellants and I hold that the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 16. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents that the application in I.A.No.473 of 2002 filed by the Official Receiver to annul the sales in favour of Gopal and Balaj under Exs.A3 and A5 was clearly barred by limitation. The learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1984 All. 224 [Gajraj Singh vs. Official Receiver, Bulandshar and others]. According to me, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, an application or suit filed to set aside the sale has to be filed within three years from the date of sale and when a suit or application is not filed within three years, the suit is barred by limitation. Our High court had also an occasion to deal with such matters and in the judgment reported in 1995-2-LW 884 in the matter of R.Appachi vs. Official Receiver Periyar District, Erode & others, it has been held that an application to annul the transfer under section 53 of the Act ought to have been filed within three years from the date of transfer and Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to such cases and therefore, any application filed for annulment beyond the period of limitation of three years was clearly barred. The learned Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1976)4 SCC 634 to arrive at the conclusion and the learned Judge has held as follows:- 8. The learned Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1976)4 SCC 634 to arrive at the conclusion and the learned Judge has held as follows:- 8. Section53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act which deals with the avoidance of the voluntary transfer, provides for the annulment of a transfer covered by that provision if such proceedings had taken place within two years of the date of adjudication of the transferor as an insolvent. Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act provides for deeming fraudulent transfers made by the insolvent as void and annulment by the Court. The matters are to be brought before Court for the purpose of declaring transaction as void by way of an application. The application to be so filed, will have to be filed within the period of Limitation prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and the period specified therein is the period of three years when the right to apply accrues. 9. On the evidence of the instant case, it is clear that the right to apply for having the transaction in favour of the appellant annulled accrued, when the vendor was declared as insolvent. The creditor who filed the Insolvency Petition was fully aware of this transaction as he himself has averred that it is this very transaction which constituted the foundation of the insolvency petition as an act of insolvency. The application to set aside the sale therefore ought to have been filed within a period of three years from the date on which the vendor of the appellant was declared as insolvent. 17. In this case also, as stated supra, the transaction under Exs.A3 and A5 were of the year 1986, the order of adjudication was on 15.04.1994 and the right accrues to the Official Receiver to annul the sale under sections 53 and 54 of the Act arose on 15.04.1994 and therefore, as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the Official Receiver ought to have filed the application for annulment within three years from the date of order of adjudication. In this case admittedly, the application was filed in the year 2002 i.e., eight years, after the date of adjudication and hence, the application filed by the Official Receiver to annul the sale deed was clearly barred by time and therefore, the order of annulment has no legal force and therefore, there is no need to set aside the transactions. 18. Further, the sales in favour of Gopal and Balaji under Exs.A3 and A5 cannot be termed as void sales and as a matter of fact, it was not the contention of the Official Receiver that the sales under Exs.A3 and A5 were void. The application in I.A.No.473 of 2002 was filed under sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and it was contested, as if the application was filed under section 53 of the Act and therefore, the Official Receiver was fully conscious of the fact that the sales under Exs.A3 and A5 are only voidable and therefore, filed application to annul that sale deeds. Admittedly, the plaintiffs, who became the owners of the property on the date of filing of annulment applications were not made as parties in I.A.No.473 of 2002. Under these circumstances, the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1960 SC 70 [FB] in the case of Ramasami Chettiar and others vs. The Officials Receiver, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, is very relevant. In that judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “Assuming that when an order is made under S.54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act annulling a transfer (Transfer of a decree in this case), the transfer stands annulled as from the date it was made, even so, the transfer stands till it is annulled and therefore, till then, the transferee has all the right in the property transferred. So long as the transferee has such rights he is competent to exercise them and such exercise would be legal and fully in accordance with law, Sub-Sections(2) and (7) of S.28 cannot have the effect of vesting the property in the receiver till its transfer has been annulled. Even where the order of adjudication is based on an act of insolvency constituted by a transfer of property found to be fraudulent performance, the transfer stands till it is set aside. Even where the order of adjudication is based on an act of insolvency constituted by a transfer of property found to be fraudulent performance, the transfer stands till it is set aside. A separate order annulling the transfer would be necessary over in such a case.” Therefore, as per the above judgment, the property will not vest on the Official Receiver automatically on the date of the order of adjudication and the property will vest on the Official Receiver, only after the sale is annulled and in the judgment reported AIR 1956 Mad. 19 , in the case of M.O.Abdul Rahim Rowther vs. Swaminatha Odayar, this court held as follows:- “A transfer of property made by an insolvent two year prior to the filing of the petition to be adjudged insolvent is only voidable. The property so transferred does not vest in the Official Receiver; but within two years the official receiver may apply for setting aside that sale was not in good faith and for valuable consideration. If so much is proved, it is in the discretion of the court to annul the sale in which case, it is not binding on the Receiver. If follows that the sale is valid till set aside. If a transfer is set aside u/s/53. Provincial Insolvency Act, it becomes ineffective only from the date of application for setting it it becomes ineffective only from the date of application for setting it aside, and it cannot affect the rights of transferees prior to that date who were not made parties to the application.” Therefore, as per the above judgment, when an order of annulment was passed, it becomes effective from the date of application filed for setting aside the sales and it cannot effect the rights of transferee prior to the date, who were not made as parties to the application. Admittedly, in this case, under Ex.A2 Krishnmoorthy purchased the property from Balaji on 11.12.1992 and under Ex.A1 Ramankrishnan purchased the property on 4.3.1993 from Krishnamoorthy. Similarly, on 4.3.1993, the first plaintiff purchased the property from Gopal under Ex.A4. Admittedly, in this case, under Ex.A2 Krishnmoorthy purchased the property from Balaji on 11.12.1992 and under Ex.A1 Ramankrishnan purchased the property on 4.3.1993 from Krishnamoorthy. Similarly, on 4.3.1993, the first plaintiff purchased the property from Gopal under Ex.A4. Therefore, on the date of order of adjudication, namely 15.04.1994, the plaintiffs became the owners of the properties, having purchased the same from Gopal and Balaji and the order of annulment was made only in the year 2002 and admittedly, the plaintiffs were not made as parties to the proceedings in I.A.No.473 of 2002 and hence, the order of annulment is not binding on the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 6. 19. Further, section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, gives protection to the bona-fide purchasers and the scope of section 55 has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2003)11 SCC 699 in the case of Sankar Ram & Co. vs. Kasi Naicker and others, held as follows:- “8. Proviso to section 55 of the Act protests bona fide transactions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of section 55. As per the proviso, in order to give protection to transactions mentioned in the said section, two conditions are to be satisfied: (1)that any such transaction takes place before the date of order of adjudication, and (2) that the person with whom such transaction takes place has not at the time of notice of the presentation of any insolvency petition by or against the debtor. By implication flowing from the said proviso, any transaction that takes place after the date of the order of adjudication does not get protection of the proviso to Section 55 whether or not the person with whom such transaction takes place has any notice of the insolvency petition by or against the debtor. We may add that section 28 and 55 must be read together harmoniously. As already noticed above, these sections are designed and intended to serve different purposes. In the proviso to Section 55 itself, there is reference to the order of adjudication and the presentation of any insolvency petition. Order of adjudication and presentation of insolvency petition are two different events essentially referring to two different dates. When in the same proviso, the legislature consciously made a clear statement as to two different dates, they should be given effect to. Order of adjudication and presentation of insolvency petition are two different events essentially referring to two different dates. When in the same proviso, the legislature consciously made a clear statement as to two different dates, they should be given effect to. If the intention of the proviso to Section 55 of the Act was not to protect even a bona fide transferee for valuable consideration without notice of presentation of insolvency petition before an order of adjudication was made, the legislature could have simply said-any transaction taking place after the date of presentation of any insolvency petition by or against the debtor instead of qualifying the transaction that takes place before the date of the order of adjudication. In this situation, the said proviso which is intended to service a definite purpose should be given full meaning and effect. It is not possible to ignore a part of the provision, namely, “any such transaction takes place before the date of the order of adjudication.” It stands to reason as well, that a bona fide transfer for valuable consideration without the knowledge of the presentation of insolvency petition on the date of transfer of property is to be protected.” 20. Therefore, from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is made clear that when any transaction has taken place after the presentation of the insolvency petition and before the order of adjudication, such transfers are protected, if such transfers were by insolvent for valid consideration. In this case, though the plaintiffs/respondents did not purchase the property from the insolvent, after the presentation of the petition, they purchased the property from the transferees of the insolvents after the presentation of the petition and when any transfer made by the insolvent, after the presentation of the petition and before the order of adjudication is protected if the sale was for valuable consideration, the same logic can be applied to any transfer that took place prior to the date of presentation and before order of adjudication for valuable consideration and such transactions are also protected. Therefore, the sales in favour of plaintiffs are also protected. Such sales cannot be annulled and before annulling the sale, the subsequent purchasers, who got vested right in that property by reason of subsequent sale ought to have been impleaded. Therefore, the sales in favour of plaintiffs are also protected. Such sales cannot be annulled and before annulling the sale, the subsequent purchasers, who got vested right in that property by reason of subsequent sale ought to have been impleaded. In-as-much-as the subsequent purchasers, the plaintiffs were not impleaded in the application for annulment, the annulment order is not binding on the respondents and therefore, there is no need to set aside and they can ignore the same and therefore, they have rightly challenged the auction sale conducted by the Official Receiver in favour of the appellant. Considering all these aspects, the lower appellate court rightly confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the substantial question of law No.2 is also answered against the appellant and I hold that the suit for declaration, declaring the sale in favour of the appellant is null and void and not binding is maintainable and there is no need to set aside the annulment order in-as-much-as the plaintiffs were the subsequent purchasers for value prior to the date of adjudication and they were not made as parties to the annulment proceedings. Further, this second appeal is also liable to be dismissed on another ground. Admittedly, the Official Receiver also challenged the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.413 of 2004 by filing Appeal in A.S.No.142 of 2006 and that appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate court and in that appeal, the appellant was one of the respondents and that was not challenged by the Official Receiver by filing second appeal and on that ground also, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed. No costs.