The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between a joint family business and an ordinary partnership business, as well as the interpretation of the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.

Reilly, J.

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Stone, J. in an insolvency matter. On the application of some creditors, three brothers, Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar, were adjudged insolvents by this Court in February, 1929. They were described in the order as "of C. K. Narayana Ayyar & Sons". The petitioning creditors did not mention, and the learned Judge who made the adjudication order was obviously unaware, that Ramanatha Ayyar had died five years earlier. There is no suggestion that any application was made to the Court for the administration of his estate under Section 108 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Ramanatha Ayyar had left a minor son, Subrahmanya Ayyar. In May, 1929, the minors mother, Meenakshi Ammal, sent a notice to the Official Assignee that Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar had carried on business not as members of a joint family, but as partners under a partnership deed of the 26th May, 1913, that the minor was entitled to a third share of the Immovable property which the partners had bought out of profits of their business and that the Official Assignee had no right to claim that third share of the property. Apparently in consequence of that notice the Official Assignee in August, 1929, gave notice of a motion for a declaration "that the business carried on by C.K. Sundaresa Ayyar and C.K. Viswanatha Ayyar under the name and style of G.K. Narayana Ayyar and Sons was a joint family business carried on for the benefit of the joint family consisting of themselves and C.K. Rule Subrahmanya Ayyar, son of C.K. Ramanatha Ayyar, a deceased son of the said C.K. Narayana Ayyar, and that the assets of the said family, including the shares therein of the said Subrahmanya Ayyar, are liable for the payment of the debts incurred in the said business." And in support of that motion the Official Assignee put in a report to the effect that the business was started by Narayana Ayyar, the father of Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar, that Narayana Ayyar retired from active business in 1911 or 1912, leaving Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar, to manage the business on behalf of their family, that after Ramanatha Ayyars death Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar, who were the only adult members of the family, carried on the business as before, that the business was a joint family business and all the assets of the family were liable for the firms debts, and that there had been no partition amongst the sons of Narayana Ayyar, who had always continued as a joint undivided family. In answer to that report a clerk of Meenakshi Ammal put in an affidavit to the following effect : Narayana Ayyar had not only three sons, namely, Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar, but also another son, his eldest son, Krishnaswami Ayyar : Narayana Ayyar started business in 1895 as his own separate and exclusive business; about 1909 he took his three younger sons, Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar, as partners and carried on the business under the style of "C.K. Narayana Ayyar & Sons" : Narayana Ayyar : retired in 1912, and that partnership was then dissolved. : Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar carried on business as partners under the same style and executed a deed of partnership on the 26th May, 1913 : Krishnaswami Ayyar never had any interest in the business of his father nor in the business of his father and his brothers nor in the business of his brothers: on the death of Ramanatha Ayyar in 1924 the partnership of the three brothers was dissolved : Ramanatha Ayyar as co-owner with his brothers Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar had a third share in the property bought by the three partner-brothers out of the profits of their business; on his death Subrahmanya Ayyar, his minor son, succeeded to that share as co-owner and also had a third share in the property afterwards bought by Sunda