The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a suit by a foreign administrator as a creditor's suit under Section 53, T.P. Act, and the requirements for leave of the insolvency Court.

Somayya, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of O.S. No. 1 of 1941 on the file of the District Court of East Tanjore. The suit was tiled by the appellant in A.S. No. 257 of 1943 for various reliefs regarding the properties in suit. Defendant 1 is the Official Assignee of Madras who is acting as an auxiliary of the Official Assignee of Singapore in the insolvency of defendant 2, K. Mohamed Hussain. Mohamed Hussain was adjudged a bankrupt by the Singapore Court by an order passed in January 1931. At the instance of the Official Assignee of Singapore in whom the estate of defendant 2 vested, the Official Assignee of Madras has been acting in aid of and as the auxiliary of the Singapore Official Assignee. This is by an order of the High Court of Madras passed in its insolvency jurisdiction.

2. One Zacharia Hussain of Velanganni in the Tanjore district started a business in Singapore in boats, lighters etc., in 1884 and built up a lucrative business. He took his wifes brother defendant 2, Mohamed Hussain to assist him in the business. Zacharia left Mohamed Hussain in charge of the business and returned to India in 1909 having appointed him as his agent. It would appear that from 1909 to 1911 another person was associated as joint agent with defendant 2 and afterwards defendant 2 was acting as the sole agent of Macharia Hussain. Zacharia lived ever afterwards in British India and did not go to Singapore. He died in British India on 20th December 1917. Thereafter defendant 2 was left in sole charge without any effective control. The plaintiff Sheriff Maracair is the eldest son of Zacharia. Defendant 3 is his Singapore wife. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of Zacharia and brothers of the plaintiff and defendant 6 is Zacharias daughter by his Indian wife. Defendant 7 is the wife of defendant 2 and she is impleaded as being in possession of certain properties claimed in suit. We are not in this appeal concerned with defendant 8. Defendant 9 is the Muslim Association of Nagore. It is in possession of item 4 Sch.B. Defendant 10 is the purchaser-of the properties in Schedule C. He died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 12 to 15 have been added as legal representatives. We are not concerned with defendant 11 in this appeal.

3. Plaintiff and defendant 3 were appointed joint administrators of the estate of Zacharia Hussain by the Supreme Court of Singapore under letters of administration evidenced by Ex. P-1a dated 6th August 1926. The two executors filed C.S. No. 96 of 1926 in the Singapore Court for a declaration that defendant 2, Mohamed Hussain was a trustee for the estate of Zacharia and was bound to render accounts as such. The suit was decreed by the Singapore Court and Ex. P-2 is the judgment. The decretal portion of the judgment directed defendant 2 to render an account of his management on the footing that he was an agent and trustee bound to account. An appeal was filed against that judgment and during the pendency of the appeal the parties came to a settlement evidenced by Ex. P-3 dated 20th June 1929 by which an account of the businesss in boats and lighters carried on in the name of defendant 2 from 1st January 1925 should be taken and settled by the person named in it and that the net assets should be divided in equal shares between the estate of the deceased Zacharia and Mohamed Hussain the defendant. Certain properties mentioned in para. 7 of Ex. P-3 were also to be divided between the two parties and Clause 9 which is important says this:

Neither party to have any claim against the other for any properties either in Singapore or in India save as herein mentioned.

4. Nothing seems to have been done in pursuance of this and the parties entered into a partnership agreement evidenced by Ex. P-4 on 23rd November 1928. Instead of having an account taken of the business as directed by Ex. P-3 the parties agreed that the business should be run in partnership with the administrators of the estate of Zacharia on the on