Krishnan, J.

1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the Official Receiver in whom the property of an insolvent Hindu governed by the Law of Mitak-shara is vested under the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920 is entitled to sell the joint family property of the insolvent and his sons for his debts, they being neither illegal nor immoral. The Lower Court has held that he could and has upheld the sale by him. The appellants contend that he has no such power.

2. The rulings of this Court have been in favour of recognizing such power and holding such sales to be valid both in the Presidency Town and in the mofussil. [See Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar (1922) I.L.R. 46 M 54 : 43 M L J 569, Sellamuthu Servai, In re (1923) I.L.R. 47 M 87 : 46 M L J 86 (F B), Sankaranarayana Pillai v. Rajamani (1923) I.L.R. 47 M 462 : 46 M L J 314 and Kuppuswami Goundan v. Marimuthu Goundan (1924) 47 M L J 487]. There was a difference of opinion as to whether the power to sell the joint property alone vested in the Official Assignee or Receiver or whether the undivided share itself of the sons vested in him. In the first three cases quoted above it Was ruled that the pow