Horwill, J.

1. The respondents in this petition attached the whole family property of the father and the son before judgment. A decree was obtained and the property was subsequently brought to sale and the purchase money deposited in Court. The father became insolvent and the fathers share of the proceeds was handed over to the Official Receiver. Because the sons share had already been attached the father had no power over the sons share of the property and so the Official Receiver was allowed to take only the fathers share of the proceeds. The petitioner, who obtained a decree against the father on a promissory note debt, has filed a petition for rateable distribution. The Subordinate Judge of Dindigul held that the petitioner could not be granted this relief.

2. The argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that as the son is liable for his fathers debt, it is not necessary for him to add the son as a party to execution proceedings against the family property, that his decree against the father must be considered to be a decree against the son also, and that he can therefore execute his decree against the sons share of the family property. Section 73 only appli