The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to sell the joint property vested in the Official Receiver under Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the sale by the Official Receiver was upheld.

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 power alone vested but in Kuppuswami Goundan v. Marimuthu Goundan (1924) 47 M L J 487 the opinion was expressed that the share itself vested. But all the cases were agreed that the Official Assignee or Receiver was entitled to sell the whole joint property and give a good title to the purchaser provided that the debts were such as the sons were, on account of their pious obligation, bound to pay from their joint property.

3. The question has again been raised now on account of the recent ruling of the Privy Council in Sat Narain v. Behari Lal (1924) I.L.R. 6 L 1 : 47 M L J 857 (P C) and it is contended that the result of that decision is to compel us to hold that neither the shares of the sons nor the power to sell such shares vests in the Official Receiver and that he can proceed against the sons share if at all only by way of suit. The Privy Council has no doubt clearly laid down that the shares of the sons do not vest in the Official Assignee. That decision was under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and one of the arguments used by their Lordships to arrive at their conclusion is based on the existence and the language of Section 52 of that Act, a section which finds no counterpart in the Provincial Insolvency Act. Nevertheless as the other arguments apply equally to the latter Act it seems to me that we must hold that the same principle governs cases under it in the mofussil. As a result we must overrule the decision in Kuppuswami Goundan v. Marimuthu Goundan (1924) 47 M L J 487 in so far as it holds that the undivided share of the son itself vests in the Official Receiver.

4. That does not however carry the appellants far enough to enable them to succeed in their appeal, for, if the Official Receiver has got the fathers power to sell the joint property vested in him, he will be entitled to sell the whole joint property himself. It is therefore argued for the appellant that though under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act such a power may be vested in the Assignee by virtue of Section 52 there is no provision in the Provincial Insolvency Act to so vest it. 1 do not think the Legislature intended to make any such distinction between the Madras and the mofussil insolvencies as suggested by this argument. It cannot be said that their Lordships of the Privy Council laid down that such a power will not pass to the Official Assignee; it was not necessary lor them to do so for the purpose of the case before them which was one of a right of pre-emption claimed by the insolvents son as owner of his share of the family property. The vesting of a power to sell it in the Official Assignee would not interfere with that right till he actually exercises that power and sells; a thing which had not been done in that case. In fact their Lordships expressly say: " It