THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 484 of 2011 Oral Judgment: This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 22.03.2001, passed by the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, dismissing the petition in I.P. No. 03 of 2003, filed by the appellant against the respondents praying to declare him as an insolvent by discharging him of all the debts and liabilities mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ by adjudicating the amounts realized from Schedule ‘B’ properties. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is the admitted case of the appellant that respondent No.1 filed suit O.S. No. 53 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, against him and obtained decree and also filed E.P. No. 21 of 2004 and the same is coming up for proclamation of sale. As respondent No.1 died during the pendency of the I.P., his legal representatives are entitled to execute the decree against the appellant. As can be seen from the judgment under appeal, the appellant is due an amount of Rs.6,35,000/-, as mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ to the respondents. Even though the appellant claimed that he owns a house property comprised in Schedule ‘B’, worth Rs.10,28,000/-, which is the only property available for distribution to his creditors, the fact remains, respondent No.36, deposed that he purchased the said house property under agreement of sale dated 09.01.2003 from the appellant and paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration, and in fact, the appellant admitted this fact. The appellant further in his evidence, admitted that he sold four mulgies on different dates, just three months before his filing the present I.P. to four different persons, for a sale consideration of Rs.3,45,000/- each. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had monies to discharge the debt just before filing the I.P., but he did not discharge. However, the appellant in spite of having the monies did not discharge the debt to respondent No.1 and others Further, as can be seen from the order under appeal, out of the 45 respondents against whom the appellant filed the present I.P., respondent Nos.2 and 40 are his brothers-in-law, respondent No.13 is his wife’s paternal uncle, respondent No.6 is his cousin and respondent No.8 is his uncle, while respondent Nos. 5 and 6 produced promissory notes under Exs. B2 and B3 stating that the appellant had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex. B2 and Rs.1,50,000/- under Ex. B3. The appellant it appears, by colluding with his relatives as arrayed them as respondents-creditors, with an intention to evade payment to the decree holder. Though some of the respondents contended that the appellant had purchased landed property in Sy. No. 53 of Narsimhapuram, Thelakantigudem, Nalgonda Mandal, the fact remains, they have not produced any evidence to prove the said fact. From the material produced and the evidence adduced, as discussed above, it is clear that the appellant just before filing the I.P. had the wherewithal to discharge the debts, and instead of making payment, to deny the fruits of the decree to the decree holder, has filed this I.P. to declare him as an insolvent. That being so, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly refused to declare the appellant as an insolvent absolving him discharge of the debts to his creditors. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K. S.APPA RAO, J. Dated: 15th June, 2011 IBL