Govinda Menon, J.-The third defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal which arises out of an application by the plaintiffs for the passing of a final decree in O.S. No. 64 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Sankaridrug, at -Salem. The facts which have given rise to this litigation are as follows. In the insolvency of the first defendant, the Official Receiver sold the rights in the disputed properties belonging to the joint family consisting of the first defendant and the plaintiffs to the second defendant in 1936 and 1939. By these purchases, in May, 1939, the second defendant became the owner of the entire rights of the joint family of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The second defendant later on assigned his rights to the third defendant.

While matters were in this state, there was a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramasastrulu v. Balakrishna Rao1 , dated 28th July, 1942, by which it was held that the right of a manager of a joint Hindu family to sell the family assets as the right of the father to sell the son’s share for debts which are neither illegal nor immoral do not vest in the Official Receiver. If that decision laid down the correct law, then the purchase by the second defendant of the entire rights of the family in the property would not be held valid; but what the second defendant obtained would only be a one third share of the first defendant.

On account of this the plaintiffs who were the minor sons of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 64 of 1943 for partition and recovery of their two-third share in the property. The first defendant was the father. The second defendant was the purchaser from the Official Receiver and the third defendant was the assignee from the second defendant. The trial Court following the decision in Ramasastrulu v. Balakrishna Rao1passed a preliminary decree for partition of the two-third share in favour of the plaintiffs on 20th August, 1943. An appeal was taken against that decree by the third defendant which was dismissed on 19th January, 1945. Thereafter this Court was moved in S.A. No. 1880 of 1945 where also the third defendant shared the same fate by the dismissal of the Second Appeal on 18th November, 1946. In the meanwhile the plaintiffs had applied to the trial Court for the passing of the final decree in accordance with the confirmed preliminary decree of the Appellate Court and an ex parte final decree was passed while the Second Appeal was pending here on 1st August, 1946. The third defendant put in an application to set aside this ex parte final decree passed against him and the same was set aside on 17th January, 1950.

The situation, therefore, is as if the preliminary decree passed on 2nd February, 1943, stood confirmed by the Second Appeal decree, dated 18th November, 1946. The application out of which this Second Appeal has arisen is the original application for passing of the final decree filed by the plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to have the final decree passed on the footing that they can claim a two-third share in the properties. Hence the Second Appeal.

Section 28-A of the Provincial Insolvency Act was introduced by section 2 of the amending Act XXV of 1948 as a result of suggestion mads by this Court in Ramasastrulu v. Balakrishna Rao1and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act XXV of 1948 contains the following:

“3. In the course of a Full Bench decision reported in Ramasastrulu v. Balakrishna Rao1 , the Madras High Court suggested that Central legislation should be promoted to bring the Provincial Insolvency Act into line with the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act in the relevant respect. The Government of India who postponed consideration of the matters pending the termination of the war, have now consulted Provincial Governments and High Courts on this suggestion which have received virtually unanimous support and to which effect is given by this Bill”.

Section 28-A runs a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document