The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of an insolvency petition does not result in a severance of joint family status, and an unmarried coparcener is not entitled to have a provision made in the partition for his marriage expenses after severance of joint family status.

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This second appeal by defendants 2 and 4 to 9 is against the decree of the District Judge of Guntur in Appeals Nos. 50 and 77 of 1925 directing the partition of the suit properties into seven shares and delivery of one-seventh share to the plaintiffs together with mesne profits, which modified the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in O.S. No. 55 of 1922. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are briefly these. The suit properties belong to a Joint Hindu family consisting of defendants 2 to 9. Defendant 2 is the father and defendants 3 to 8 are his sons. Defendant 9 is the son of defendant 3. In I.P. No. 14 of 1915 on the file of the District Court of Guntur, defendant 3 was adjudicated an insolvent and defendant 10 was appointed the Official Receiver. In the course of his administration of the insolvents estate, defendant 10 sold by public auction the one-seventh share of defendants 3 and 9 in the suit properties. Plaintiff 1 purchased one-seventh share in certain specified lots under the sale deed executed by the Official Receiver, Ex. A, dated 11th February 1919. The one-seventh share in the other lots was sold to defendant 1, the son in law defendant 2, under the sale deed Ex. B dated 12th February 1919. Plaintiff 2 is the son of plaintiff 1. Plaintiff 1 conveyed a portion of his properties to plaintiff 3 by a registered sale deed dated 2nd October 1920.

2. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for partition of the suit properties into seven equal shares and delivery to them of the one-seventh share purchased by them together with mesne profits. Issues 3 and 5 in the suit, with the decision of which we are mainly concerned, in the second appeal are as follows: Issue 3. - Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any, and, if so, to what mesne profits against the defendants 2 and 4 to 8? Issue 5. - Whether the defendants 7 and 8 are entitled to have provision made out of the joint estate for the expenses of their marriage. With respect to issue 3 plaintiffs contended that they are entitled to get mesne profits from the date of their purchase of the share of the properties claimed by them, i.e. from 11th February 1919, while the defendants contended that they were entitled to mesne profits only from the date of the preliminary decree for partition, i.e., from 12th November 1924. In Mahjaraja of Bobbili v. Venkataramanjulu Naidu 1915 Mad. 453 it was held, disapproving some previous decisions, that a purchaser of an undivided share of a member of a joint Hindu family does not thereby become a tenant-in-common with the other members and hence he is not entitled to any mesne profits in respect of his share for the period between the date of his purchase and the date of his suit for partition. Belying mainly on this decision the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim mesne profits from the date of the suit. It will be observed that he disallowed the contentions of both the plaintiffs and the defendants on this point.

3. With respect to issue 5 it was contended by the defendants that the marriage expenses of defendants 7 and 8 should be provided for before the properties are equally partitioned. The plaintiffs contended that no such provisions out of the joint family funds could be made. In Gopalan v. Venkataraghavalu 1915 Mad. 1027 it was held following Srinivasa Iyengar v. Thiruvengadathiyangar 1914 Mad. 226 and dissenting from Narayana Annavi v. Ramalinga Annavi 1917 Mad 477, that in partition decrees provision should be made for the marriage expenses of the unmarried members of the family. Following this decision the learned Subordinate Judge held that provision has to be made out of the joint family estate for the marriage of defendants 7 and 8. In the result the Subordinate Judge passed a decree directing the delivery of one-seventh share to the plaintiffs together