THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.S.A.No.26 of 2008 ORDER: The appellant filed I.P.No.12 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda against the respondents under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to declare him as insolvent. He pleaded that he did business in purchase and sale of groundnut, incurred debts from the respondents and on account of loss sustained in the business, he is unable to clear them. It was also pleaded that the assets owned by him are not sufficient to meet the liability towards the respondents. The I.P. was opposed by the respondents. They pleaded that the appellant has not disclosed certain items of property owned by him, such as, an extent of about Acs.4.30 cents of land, a residential house and hayrick yards. The trial Court dismissed the I.P. through its order, dated 06.06.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.60 of 2005 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur. The appeal was dismissed on 09.10.2006. Hence, this civil miscellaneous second appeal. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has disclosed all the items of property owned by him and there was no justification for the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that certain items were suppressed. He further submits that an extent of Acs.4.30 cents of land was owned by the father of the appellant and that the same was bequeathed upon the daughters of the appellant by his father. He contends that by pointing out certain minor discrepancies, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not believe the same. The learned counsel also submits that the findings recorded as regards the other items of property also untenable. The liability pleaded by the appellant towards the respondents was mentioned in “A” schedule and it is to the tune of about Rs.11,00,000/-. The properties held by the appellant were shown in “B” schedule, comprising of one item, namely two plots of land admeasuring Acs.0.04 cents each in Survey No.129 of Kodimi Village, Anantapur District. The value thereof was shown as Rs.15,600/-. The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely whether the appellant is entitled to be declared as insolvent. The appellant adduced oral evidence of himself and P.W.2 and on his behalf, Exs.X1 to X3, the certified copies of gift deeds were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. Even if one ignores the plea of the respondents that the appellant did not disclose the assets owned by him, the record does not entail in grant of relief in favour of the appellant. The reason is that except the oral evidence of himself and P.W.2, no other material was placed before the trial Court. The documentary evidence was almost in the form of rebuttal to the plea of the respondents that the appellant held other items of property. When the losses are said to have been occurred in the course of business, it was his obligation to place before this Court the relevant accounts and the particulars of loan transactions. It is just unimaginable that a person, who did business of such a magnitude, did not own even a residential house or a vehicle, not to speak of other movable or immovable properties. The plea raised by the respondents that the appellant has screened of substantial items of property was proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Ex.X1 pleaded by the appellant was found to be unbelievable. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court analysed the matter from the correct perspective and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Further, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The civil miscellaneous second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2010 kdl