THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 59 of 2009 DATE: 18-07-2011 Between: Gudapati Veera Venkateswara Rao .. Appellant And Sri Ranganayaka Swamy Vari Temple, Machilipatnam and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 59 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 17.08.2005 in A.S.No.7 of 2000 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna District at Machilipatnam, wherein the order dated 30.10.1999 in I.P.No.5 of 1997 declaring the petitioner as insolvent was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The appellant herein claims to be an auto driver and he has taken some properties of the 1st respondent herein on lease and he claims to have indebted to a tune of Rs.38,000/- and he was evicted from the lands of the 1st respondent. Thereafter the petitioner has filed I.P.No.5 of 1997 stating that he has no means and he was working as auto driver and earning a sum of Rs.30/- to Rs.40/- per day and, therefore, he may be declared as insolvent. The 1st respondent contended that the petitioner is running a mechanic shop and is having wet land to an extent of Ac.0-43 cents and was said to be having house sites. The Insolvency Court has considered the contentions of both the parties and found that the petitioner is an insolvent. The appellate Court found that the petitioner does not own the auto or a mechanic shop. He was running the same and earning Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- and the lower Court also considered the evidence of R.W.2, who is the clerk in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guduru having stated that in the name of the father of the petitioner, there is a wet land. The petitioner has not stated as to how he lost the rights in the property belonging to his father. It is for the petitioner to explain as to who succeeded to the property of his father. But the petitioner is silent and the evidence of the petitioner is also silent on this aspect. It is not known under what capacity Katragadda Lakshmi was in possession of the property. Even if she is a tenant of the property, the rights of the petitioner having succeeded to the property of his father are not destroyed. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the lower appellate Court has appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has got means. There is no error of fact committed by the lower Court and there is no question of law involved calling for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 18-07-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 59 of 2009 DATE: 18-07-2011 MR