THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.46 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The 2nd respondent in I.P.No.54 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, is the appellant herein. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed a creditor I.P. against the 3rd respondent, who is the husband of the present appellant, challenging the gift deed executed in her favour on 08.02.2000 and some other documents in favour of other respondents on the ground that they are intended for defeating and defrauding the creditors. The appellant herein did not contest the case and it was only her husband that has filed the counter. 3. After considering the material on record, the lower Court has declared the 1st respondent as insolvent so far as it relates to the alienation in favour of the appellant herein concerning the share of the 3rd respondent, the petition against respondents 3 to 9 was dismissed. As against that order, the appeal A.S.No.79 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, was also filed and the learned District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru has dismissed the said appeal confirming the order of the insolvent Court. 4. The present appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent. Evidently, in order to show that the order of insolvency Court is not proper, it is for the appellant to show that there is no malafide intention in transferring the properties in her favour and that her husband has got some other properties. The appellant also has not chosen to file any counter to support the gift as a bonafide one nor did she go into box to claim that the gift deed is valid and when once the gift deed is not proved by examining herself the question of considering the validity of it at this stage, does not arise. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the petition was filed beyond a period of 90 days from the date of execution of the gift and therefore, the petition is not maintainable and this point can be argued by the appellant even though she did not participate in the Court below proceedings. Since it is a question of law, there can be no dispute about the right of the appellant to agitate the same. The grounds of appeal do not reflect as to on what is the reason to canvass that the petition is barred by time. As can be seen from the order of the lower court and also the record of the lower Court, the gift deed was executed on 08.02.2000 and the application is said to have been filed on 03.06.2000 as per the order of the insolvency Court. Evidently, summer vacation intervenes by May, 2000, the application seems to have been filed on the day of reopening. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant is not able to substantiate as to on what ground the petition is barred by time. Therefore, there is no legal aspect involved in this case calling for interference in the second appeal and on question of fact, the petitioner has never made any attempt to defeat the gift deed either proving it or by claiming that there was no malafide intention. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the Civil miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:04.07.2011 INL