The attachment of a son's share in the family property, in the case of the insolvency of the father, prevents the Official Receiver from selling the son's interests to discharge the father's debts.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. On the 24th September, 1931, the appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 19,383-10-1 with interest against one Ramaswami Chettiar and his five sons. The father and the sons constituted a joint Hindu family. In 1926 the father was adjudicated an insolvent by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah subsequently obtained seisin of the insolvency proceedings and the estate of the insolvent vested in the Official Receiver of Ramnad. The Official Receiver sought to bring the whole of the family properties to sale for the benefit of the creditors on the ground that the sons shares in those properties were available for the discharge of the fathers debts on the principle of Hindu law that sons are liable for their fathers debts. The Official Receiver received bids for the various items of property in March 1932, but he did not accept any bid and adjourned the sale until the 9th April, 1932. Mean while the appellant had filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah proceedings in execution of his decree and asked for the attachment of the shares of the sons in the family properties. An order was issued and the properties were attached. The appellant then filed an application asking the Court to restrain the Official Receiver from proceeding to sell the shares of the sons in the attached properties. By consent, on the 9th April, 1932, an order was passed by the Subordinate Judge allowing the Official Receiver to proceed with the sale of the properties, but subject to his paying five-sixths of the proceeds (the amount representing the sons shares) into Court pending the decision of the main application. In pursuance of this order the Official Receiver sold the properties in June 1932 and realised a total sum of Rs. 17,400. Of this amount Rs. 14,500, representing the shares of the sons, was deposited in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge having heard the parties held that the appellant was entitled to an order for payment to him of the Rs 14,500 on the ground that the Official Receivers power to sell the interests of the sons in the properties for the discharge of the fathers debts was defeated by the order of attachment. The Official Receiver appealed to the District Judge, who reversed the decision of the Subordinate judge on the ground that the right to sell the properties had vested in the Official Receiver either at the time of adjudication or some time before the sale of the properties took place. The learned District Judge failed to understand the question which was before him. The fact that the right to sell the sons shares had devolved on the Official Receiver was not the only factor. The present appeal is from the order of the District Judge.

2. The appellant contends that the Official Receiver merely stands in the shoes of the father. He says that as the attachment would be valid against the father and would prevent him from exercising his power to sell his sons interests in the family properties in order to discharge his own debts, the attachment puts an end to the right of the Official Receiver to sell as he has no greater rights than the father. The Official Receiver does not attempt to support the decision of the District Judge on the ground given by the District Judge, but he says that there cannot be a valid attachment without the leave of the Insolvency Court and in this connection relies on the provisions of Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Before examining the effect of Section 28 it will be convenient to refer to certain authorities which lay down principles which have application here.

3. In Sat Narain v. Behari Lal (1924) 47 M.L.J. 857 : L.R. 52 IndAp 22 : I.L.R. 6 Lah. 1 , the Privy Council held that when a Hindu is adjudicated an insolvent under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, his sons interests in the joint family property do not thereby become vested in the Official As