The power of the father to dispose of the son's share in a joint Hindu family property subsists until division, and the attachment of the son's interest may prevent the alienation taking effect against the claims under the attachment. The Official Receiver was deemed competent to sell the plaintiff's interest in the joint family property.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff against his father the first defendant and his uncle the second defendant, whose estates were on the date of the suit vested in the Official Receiver, Kistna, who was impleaded as the twenty-first defendant. The plaintiff claimed a fourth share in all the properties comprised in the plaint and incidentally prayed for a declaration that certain alienations effected by the Official Receiver, Kistna, were not binding on his : share. Defendants 3 to 20 are the various alienees but these appeals are confined to the alienations in favour of defendants 4, 11, 12 and 13, Appeal No. 427 of 1938 is by defendants 12 and 13 while Appeal No. 428 of 1938 is by defendants 4 and 11. The properties which are the subject-matter of Appeal No. 427 of 1938 are items 4 and 5 of B Schedule and items 2 and 3 of C Schedule and the properties which are the subject-matter of Appeal No. 428,of 1938 are items 8 of A Schedule and 10 of B Schedule and item 1 of C Schedule. The various dates of sale to the said defendants are as follows:

12th defendant ... 19th September, 1932. (Ex. VII) 13th defendant ... 29th November, 1932. 23 11th defendant ... 9th October, 1932. II 4th defendant ... 7th December, 1932. (Ex. I)

The second defendant was adjudicated insolvent on 12th September, 1931, and the first defendant on 11th January, 1932. The first defendant and the father of the second defendant are the sons of one Janamsetty and they were on the date of. the insolvency of the second defendant admittedly members of an undivided Hindu family and upto the date of suit no division took place between the first defendant and his son the plaintiff and the second defendant or between the first defendant and the plaintiff. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is entitled to a fourth-share but his claim is resisted on the ground that the said properties constitute the self-acquired property of defendants 1 and 2, and the plaintiff has no title thereto and assuming they are joint family properties, they were validly sold by the Official Receiver in pursuance of the power to sell the share of the plaintiff for the debts of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs case is that so far as the question of self-acquisition is concerned, it was concluded in his favour by reason of the orders on two claim petitions filed by the Official Receiver in the course of the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 28 of 1931, which was obtained by the 16th defendant against the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and that in any event the properties which were sold were the subject-matter of attachment in the said suit long before the first defendant was adjudicated insolvent and the power of the first defendant to sell the plaintiffs share in the joint family property did not vest in the Official Receiver. It is admitted that the properties were attached before judgment on 18th March, 1931, and they were again attached : after the decree on 29th February, 1932. Subsequent to the decree in April, 1932, the Official Receiver put in a claim petition stating that all the properties that were attached were the self-acquired properties of defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff had no share therein (Ex. G). That petition was dismissed on 26th April, 1932 on the ground of unnecessary delay. There was an appeal preferred to the High Court and it was dismissed on 18th September, 1932, on the ground that the appeal was incompetent and the remedy of the Official Receiver was to file a suit under Order 21, Rule 63. (Vide Official Receiver, Kistna v. Imperial Bank of India (1934) 68 M.L.J. 78 : I.L.R. Mad. 403 . It is unnecessary to deal with the correctness of this decision as both the Official Receiver and the 16th defendant would be governed by it. While the appeal was pending in the High Court, the Official Receiver preferred another claim petition on 4th August, 1932, which was also dismissed on the ground of