The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the devolution of the manager's right to sell family assets to discharge debts under the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the alignment of this interpretation with the judgments of the Privy Council in similar cases under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal raises the important question whether the right of a manager of a joint Hindu family to sell family assets to discharge debts which are payable out of the joint estate devolves on the Official Receiver when the manager has been adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act.

2. Two brothers, Ayodhyaramayya and Raghava Rao, were joint in estate. Raghava Rao died in 1923, leaving a son who is the 2nd defendant. After Raghava Raos death Ayodhyaramayya and his nephew continued to be undivided. On the 24th November, 1927, Ayodhyaramayya was adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act, On the 12th March, 1931, in order to discharge debts binding on the family the Official Receiver sold to one Saravayya certain family properties, which included the properties in suit. The properties were subject to mortgages and the sale to Saravayya, was, of course, subject to the rights of the mortgagees. The plaintiff purchased the properties in suit from Saravayya. Ayodhyaramayya and the 2nd defendant owed monies to the 1st defendant, who obtained a decree against them. On the 28th January, 1933, the. 1st defendant attached the properties in suit, whereupon the plaintiff objected, but his objection was overruled. As the result the Court sold the properties by auction and they were purchased by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff then filed the present suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bezwada for a declaration that the properties were not liable to attachment by the 1st defendant. The District Munsiff held that the managers right to sell properties to meet family debts devolved upon the Official Receiver and consequently a valid title had passed to Saravayya. Accordingly the District Munsiff granted the declaration asked for and on appeal the decision was upheld by the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada. The 1st defendant then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Venkataramana Rao, J., who, feeling himself bound by decisions of this Court to which reference will be made later, dismissed the appeal, but in the course of his judgment he indicated that the question whether the managers right to sell joint family property devolved upon the Official Receiver under the Provincial Insolvency Act required further consideration in view of the decisions of the Privy Council in Sat Narain v. Behari Lal (1924) 47 M.L.J. 857: L.R. 52 IndAp 22 : I.L.R. 6 Lah. 1 (P.C.). and Sat Narain v. Sri Kishen Das (1936) 71 M.L.J. 812 : L.R. 63 IndAp 384 : I.L.R. 17 Lah. 644 (P.C.).

3. Before proceeding to examine the effect of the judgments of the Judicial Committee in Sat Narain v. Behari Lal (1924) 47 M.L.J. 857 : L.R. 52 IndAp 22 : I.L.R. 6 Lah. 1 (P.C.). and Sat Narain v. Sri Kishen Das (1936) 71 M.L.J. 812 : L.R. 63 IndAp 384 : I.L.R. 17 Lah. 644 (P.C.). it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and the Provincial Insolvency Act.

4. Section 2(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act states:

Property includes any property over which or the profits of which any person has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit.

The definition of property in the Provincial Insolvency Act is contained in Section 2 (d) and is word for word the same.

5. Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act states that the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Official Assignee. Eliminating a proviso which does not apply here the section reads as follows:

On the making of an order of adjudication, the property of the insolvent wherever situate shall vest in the Official Assignee and shall become divisible among his creditors, and thereafter, except as directed by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable in insolvency shall, during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt or shall commence any su