Sons born subsequent to the adjudication of their father as insolvent do not acquire any interest in their father's undivided share in the Hindu joint family property which prior to their birth vested in the Official Receiver.

JUDGMENT :- The first respondent to the second appeal filed a suit O. S. 55 of 1952 against the fourth respondent herein and obtained a decree on 31-3-53. On 12-6-53, the 1st respondent filed E. P. 137 of 1953 for executing the said decree. However during the pendency of that application the 4th respondent herein was adjudged insolvent in I. P. 13 of 1953. In view of this adjudication E. P. 137 of 1953, was dismissed on 22-6-1954.

Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E. A. 333 of 1954 in I. P. 13 of 1953, and on 5-2-1955, obtained leave of the Court to execute the decree against the 4th respondent's share in the suit property. Subsequently on 5-5-1955, the 1st respondent filed E. P. 242 of 1955 and attached the one-fourth undivided interest of the 4th respondent in the property of the joint family comprising of himself, respondents 2 and 3 herein and one R. N. Rangachari, who figured as the 1st defendant in the present suit. On 23-11-1959 the first respondent himself purchased said one-fourth undivided interest in the auction. On 4-1-1960, a sale certificate was issued to him and on 17-5-1960, the possession of the said one-fourth undivided share was also delivered to him. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed O. S. 345 of 1961 out of which this second appeal arises for partition of the said one-fourth share purchased by him, impleading the judgment-debtor (4th respondent), the 4th respondent's three brothers and the Official Receiver, Madurai, as defendants to the suit. Subsequently the present appellants before me who were minor sons of the 4th respondent were added as the 6th and 7th defendants to the suit as per the order dated 9-11-1961 on I. A. 1730 of 1961. The Official Receiver remained ex parte and the other respondents, namely, the judgment debtor, his three brothers and two minor sons, contested the claim of the 1st respondent. The principal defence was that though the 1st respondent purported to bring to sale and purchase the one-fourth undivided interest of the 4th respondent in the property in question, still on the date of of the sale the 1st respondent had two minor sons, namely, defendants 6 and 7, and therefore, the interest of the 4th respondent acquired by sale was not one-fourth interest, but only 1/12th interest, one-sixth interest going to the shares of the two minor sons of the 4th respondent. The learned District Munsif overruled the contention of the defendants and decreed the suit in favour of the 1st respondent as prayed for with costs and past and future mesne profits. The decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif were confirmed by the learned District Judge of Madurai, in A. S. 38 of 1963. It is against this judgment and decree the present second appeal has been filed by the two minor sons of the 4th respondent.

2. Before me, Mr. A. Ramanathan, the learned counsel for the appellants, advanced several arguments raising interesting questions of law. However in view of one admitted fact, none of those questions fall to be considered in the present appeal. That admitted fact is that the present appellants were born subsequent to the adjudication of the 4th respondent. If they were born subsequent to the adjudication of the 4th respondent, the law is clear that they do not acquire any interest in their father's undivided share in the Hindu joint family property which prior to

their birth vested in the Official Receiver. In P. Rama Vilas Nidhi Ltd. v. Pera Naicken, ILR 59 Mad 770 : (AIR 1936 Mad 161), two sons born subsequent to the adjudication of their father as insolvent filed a suit for partition impleading the Official Receiver as a defendant. The Official Receiver remained ex parte with the result the two sons got a decree for partition. Afterwards the Official Receiver filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, pleading his forgetfulness in the midst of heavy work. But as even this application was filed out of time, the Court dismissed the application. Thereupon one