THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.S.A.No.27 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed I.P.No.22 of 2001, under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, against the respondents. He pleaded that he was indebted to three individuals, to the tune of Rs.6,73,000/-, as mentioned in ‘A’ Schedule, and that he has only 1/4th share in three items of property, which comes to about Rs.1 lakh. The I.P was opposed by respondents 1, 2, 12, 13 and 15. They alleged that the three items of property are exclusively owned by the appellant and their value is about Rs.16 lakhs. It was further alleged that some of the loans mentioned in ‘A’ Schedule are fictitious, and the I.P. was filed only to defeat the liability of the appellant towards them. Through its order dated 04-03-2004, the trial Court dismissed the I.P. Appellant filed A.S.No.30 of 2005 in the Court of V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East-Godavari at Rajahmundry. The appeal was dismissed on 23-03-2010. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence from the correct perspective. He contends that the bald plea taken by the respondents, that the appellant is possessed of valuable properties, and the ‘B’ Schedule properties are exclusively owned by him, though there are other sharers for it; cannot be accepted. The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., whether the appellant is entitled to be declared as insolvent. The evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant comprised of his own deposition, and nothing else. RW-1 was examined on behalf of the respondents. The I.P was dismissed, and the lower Appellate Court confirmed the same. Even according to the appellant, three items of immovable properties are possessed by him. However, he stated that his share is only 1/4th in each of them. On behalf of the contesting respondents, separate and detailed counters were filed, and they stated that the properties are self-acquisition of the appellant, and others do not have any share in them. It was further stated that the monthly income of the appellant alone, towards rent, is from quite large number of mulgies. In case the appellant wanted to rebut that contention, he ought to have placed the relevant material before the Court. The self-serving deposition of the appellant herein is not at all adequate, to prove his contentions. No documents were placed before the trial Court to establish that the properties are joint in nature, and that his share is only 1/4th . The relief claimed in the I.P., is extraordinary, and if a person is declared as insolvent, the creditors would certainly stand to loose. In such cases, the findings need to be recorded on the strength of foolproof and clinching evidence. No effort was made by the appellant to discharge the burden of such a nature. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have taken correct view of the matter, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-09-2010 KO