JUDGMENT : Against the concurrent finding rendered by the Additional District Court, Kottayam in A.S.No.308 of 2005, dated 23.10.2010, and by the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam in I.P.No.7 of 2003, dated 5.11.2005, the petitioner came up with this second appeal. 2. A creditor petition under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the petitioner for declaring respondent Nos.1 to 3 as insolvent based on an alleged 'act of insolvency', transferring their only immovable property having an extent of 13 cents and a building thereon for a paltry amount of Rs.5 lakhs to respondent No.5. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is a creditor, had instituted three different civil suits for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6,18,327/- with interest and cost of proceedings. All the above three suits were decreed. On 16.1.2003, respondent Nos.1 to 3 with the intention to defeat and delay the amount due under the decrees, alienated and transferred their only immovable property having an extent of 13 cents to respondent No.5 for a paltry consideration of Rs.5 lakhs. According to the petitioner, execution of the said document by transferring their right, title and interest over the immovable property amounts to 'an act of insolvency' as defined under Section 6 of the Act. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 contested the application admitting execution of the sale deed but raised a contention that there was an understanding to re-convey the property. 4. Respondent No.5 also submitted his objection raising that he is a bona fide purchaser having no notice regarding the existing liability of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also the passing of three decrees against them. It was further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are having sufficient means to pay off the decree amount and hence disputed the alleged 'act of insolvency' claimed by the petitioner. 5. The insolvency court, after taking evidence and after hearing the parties, found that respondent No.3, who is running water bottling business at Kambham in Tamil Nadu in two acres of landed property, is having sufficient funds/income to satisfy the decrees and that the said document was not executed as an 'act of insolvency' either to delay or to defeat the decrees and hence the creditor petition was dismissed. It was taken up in appeal before the first appellate court wherein the finding rendered by the insolvency court was confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2010. Aggrieved by the said concurrent finding and the decree passed by the insolvency court and the first appellate court, the petitioner came up with this second appeal. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the property situated in Kambham is only a leasehold property. There is no evidence to show that any of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is having any other assets, either movable or immovable. It was also contended that the finding rendered by both the insolvency court and the first appellate court suffers a material defect as the factum of transfer of the only immovable property along with the house that too for a paltry amount of Rs.5 lakhs has not been properly considered or appreciated either by the insolvency court or by the first appellate court. It was also submitted that in order to bring a transfer within the purview of an 'act of insolvency', the requirement is to show that it was intended either to delay or to defeat the execution of the decree or realization of the amount due to the creditors. It is also submitted that though income tax return of one year was produced to show that respondent No.3 was having an income of Rs.1.5 lakhs that itself would not be sufficient to satisfy the three decrees which were passed for recovery of a total amount of Rs.6,18,327/- along with its interest and cost of proceedings. There is no dispute with respect to the passing of three decrees for recovery of a total amount of Rs.6,18,327/- with interest. The factual situation involved in the case has been considered by the insolvency court as well as the first appellate court and rendered a concurrent finding to the effect that respondent No.3 is having sufficient income/funds to satisfy the abovesaid decrees. 7. The main challenge is that an income of Rs.1,50,000/- may not be sufficient to satisfy a huge amount covered by the three decrees. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to show that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have sufficient means. 7. The main challenge is that an income of Rs.1,50,000/- may not be sufficient to satisfy a huge amount covered by the three decrees. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to show that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have sufficient means. There is an application filed before this court in a writ petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3 wherein they had offered an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs) for re-purchasing the property from the transferee. It was also brought to the notice of this court that though the sale consideration stated in the document comes to only Rs.5 lakhs there is evidence to show that much more amount was involved in the said transaction as the purchaser had undertaken to discharge a liability of more than Rs.20 lakhs in connection with the chitty conducted by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the sale deed was executed in consideration of discharging the abovesaid liability by the purchaser besides the consideration passed on. But even according to the purchaser, respondent No.5, there is an offer from respondent Nos.1 to 3 for re-purchasing the property for a total amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs). The conduct of a bottling unit in two acres of property in Kambham in Tamil Nadu, in a property obtained under a lease, would speak volume regarding the business conducted by respondent No.3 who is an income tax assessee. What has to be looked into in order to ascertain whether there is any 'act of insolvency' is the transfer of his property or any part thereof with an intention to defeat or to delay the creditors. When there is source of income to satisfy the decree or the claim of creditors it would suffice. Unless there is an intention to defeat or delay the creditors in the transaction, it cannot be brought under clause (b) to Section 6 of the Act. Every transfer made by a lawful owner during the pendency of liability cannot be brought under the purview of either Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Act. The requirement is to show and establish that the transfer was effected for the purpose of and with an intention to delay or to defeat his creditors. 8. Every transfer made by a lawful owner during the pendency of liability cannot be brought under the purview of either Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Act. The requirement is to show and establish that the transfer was effected for the purpose of and with an intention to delay or to defeat his creditors. 8. The contention raised by respondent No.5 that he is a bona fide purchaser was challenged mainly on the reason that the amount shown in the document is only a paltry amount of Ts.5 lakhs, but there is evidence to show that what is involved and promised by way of consideration comes to more than Rs.26 lakhs. It is also submitted that inclusion of a meager amount instead of showing the actual consideration itself would show that there is something fishy in the said transaction. The nondisclosure of actual consideration in the document will not vitiate the document especially when the question came up for consideration is with respect to the validity of the transaction based on an alleged conduct of 'act of insolvency' as defined under Section 6 of the Act. 9. Further, there is distinction between Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Act apart from Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The right of a bona fide purchaser is protected under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act but either under Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 no such right was protected. The requirement embodied and mandated under Sections 6, 7 and 9 is so rigorous that a creditor petition grounded on an 'act of insolvency' has to be presented within a period of three months. There is no provision for relaxation or condoning the delay in preferring such an application after the expiry of the period of three months. The ingredient which would constitute a creditor petition grounded on an 'act of insolvency' should satisfy the requirement of its presentation within three months. A creditor who failed to bring up a petition grounded on an “act of insolvency”, within the time limit of three months as stipulated, can bring up an action under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act wherein the parties are governed by a different yardstick apart from what is covered under Section 6 read with Section 9(c) of the Act. The rigorous as embodied under Section 9(c) of the Act in a creditor petition grounded on an 'act of insolvency' is too harsh to the extent of denying the protection to a bona fide purchaser without notice of the liability and hence it is an exception to the general rule of equity, apart from Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act wherein the interest of a bona fide purchaser, without notice is protected. But in a creditor petition grounded on an 'act of insolvency' no such protection is available and as such the court cannot entertain any such contention based on bona fide purchaser. In short, there is no merit in the argument that respondent No.5 is a bona fide purchaser without notice of the liability to the creditors and passing of the decrees in three suits. 10. But as discussed in earlier paragraphs, unless there is an 'act of insolvency' the deed of transfer cannot be brought under the purview of Section 9(c) of the Act. In order to bring a creditor petition under Section 9(c) of the Act the mandate under Section 6 of the Act has to be established showing the 'act of insolvency'. In the instant case, the alleged act of insolvency would come under clause (b) to Section 6 of the Act. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, no inference can be drawn that respondent Nos.1 to 3 had executed the sale deed in question with the intention to defeat or delay their creditors. Hence, there cannot be any 'act of insolvency' as mandated under Section 6 of the Act. The second appeal fails, deserves only dismissal and I do so. No costs.