The entitlement to rateables extends to judgment-debtors in joint Hindu family debts, and the power of decree holders over shares passed to the Official Receiver is not absolute.

Walsh, J.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise from an order passed under Section 73, Civil P.C. I may note at the outset that one of the petitioners,. i.e. petitioner, 2 who is a decree holder, has no locus standi. The decree-holders who raised objection to the distribution of rateables in the lower Court were these in O.S. Nos. 60 and 61 of 1927 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Masulipatam. Petitioner 2 in this Court is Gottamukkula Eamayya. He is not a decree-holder in either of the decrees. At the time of the presentation of the petition, the office raised a query as to how it could entertain the petition, in reply to which a note was made that he was the decree holder in O Section No 65 of 1926. It is now admitted that is a wrong number and that he is not a decree-holder in any of the decrees in question. On account of this, he must be eliminated, and we have only to deal with petitioner 1 who is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 61 of 1927. Petitions, as far as petitioner 2 is concerned, must be dismissed in limine.

2. One Venkatasubbaya had four sons, who were defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 61 of 1927. The sons of these sons were defendants 5 to 9 in that suit. For convenience, I shall hereafter refer to Venkatasubbayya as the grandfather, defendants 1 to 4 as "the sons" and defendants 5 to 9 as "the grandsons". Venkatasubayya died and afterwards the four sons and (defendants 1 to 4) were adjudicated insolvents on 5-10-28 and their 9/16th share became vested in the Official Receiver. The petitioners who had decrees against the sons and grandsons brought to sale the 7/l6th share of the grandsons and the sale proceeds were deposited in Court. The respondents in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 690 to 963 claimed rateables as decree-holders. The respondent in C.E.P. 960 of 1930 obtained a decree in O.S. No. 65 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam against the family properties and assets of the grandfather in the hands of defendants 1 to 4. The respondent in C.E.P. No. 961 of 1930 was a decree holder in O.S. No. 183 of 1928 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivarla on the foot of a pronote executed by defendants 1 to 4 and a decree was passed against them. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 962 of 1930 got a decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1928 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, on a pro-note executed by defendants 1 and 2, the sons, and the father Venkatasubbayya. The respondent in C.E.P. No. 963 of 1930 obtained a decree in O.S. No. 118 of 1925 against the father Venkatasubbayya and some others. It is not disputed that apart from the insolvency proceedings, the respondents in these cases are entitled to rateables so far as the share of the sons in the property is concerned. It is unnecessary to discuss the catena of eases by which it has now been laid down that under Section 73 all the judgment-debtors need not be identical and that if one or more of the judgment-debtors be the same, rateables can be got as regards their share of the property. On this, the Full Bench decision of Calcutta in Ganesh Das v. Shiva Lakshman (1903) 30 Cal 583 overruled the previous decision to the contrary, namely, Deboki Nundan v. Hart (1886) 12 Cal 294; and Chhotalal v. Nabibhai (1905) 29 Bom 528 overruled Nimbuji v. Vadia Venkati (1892) 16 Bom 683. This position is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. But his contention is that the words the same judgment-debtor in Section 73 will not include the case of the sons in a joint Hindu family who are under a pious obligation to pay their fathers debt where a decree was obtained against the father alone.

3. I may first deal with the preliminary objection raised that this Court cannot interfere in revision, because the monies having been paid out, the petitioner has a remedy by way of suit under Section 73(2). There is no doubt a Bench decision of this Court reported in Somasundaram Chettia