The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Official Receiver is personally liable for costs in an ordinary action, and may seek reimbursement from the estate or creditors.

Wallace, J.

1. On the 7th December, 1920, a Bench of this Court in A.S. No. 353 of 1919 between the Official Receiver of South Malabar (Mr. A.V. Balakrishna Menon), the appellant and various respondents, decreed "that the appellant do pay to respondents 1 to 6 Rs. 452-13-6 for their costs in opposing this appeal."The short point for decision in this C.M.A. is whether or not the wording of that decree has to be taken to imply that the costs can be recovered from Mr. Balakrishna Menon personally. The Lower Court has held that t does so imply and Mr. Menon appeals. He contends that such phrasing in the decree against the Official Receiver ex-officio implies that unless the Court directs otherwise he shall not be personally liable. The respondents contend that where the Court has not said that the costs will come only out of the insolvents estate in the hands of the Official Receiver, the Official Receiver is personally liable for the costs.

2. Admittedly, Mr. Balakrishna Menon was no longer holding the office of Official Receiver when the present execution petition in which execution has issued against him personally was put in. The suit itself was filed in 1917 against the predecessor in office of Mr. Menon. It was by members of a tarwad to declare that certain property included in the schedule of their insolvent karnavan was not his property but the property of the tarwad. While the suit was pending, Mr. Menon in 1918 came into charge of the Office of the Official Receiver and continued the defence in the suit. The suit was eventually decreed with costs against the Official Receiver. He, i.e., Mr. Menon, preferred an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed also, the decree giving the direction noted above as to costs. Mr. Menon ceased to be Official Receiver in January, 1925. There are no funds in the insolvents estate to meet this decree for costs and the decree-holder seeks to execute it against Mr. Menon himself.

3. Now there can be no doubt that the Official Receiver or a trustee in bankruptcy may, like any ordinary litigant, be ordered to pay costs in any action taken or defended by him. See John Tweedle & Co., Ltd., In re (1970) 2 K.B. 697, Arthur Williams & Co., In re. The Official Receiver, ex parte (1913) 2 K.B. 88 and James Bevis v. C.A. Turner (1883) I.L.R. 7 B. 484. The question here is what did the Court intend when it baldly said that he shall pay costs. As the Court has not specifically stated its intention we have to be guided by the general principles of law. The law in England is thus stated in Halsbury, Bankruptcy and Insolvency, para. 176 under the sub-heading Official Receiver:

The Official Receiver is not personally liable for costs, when being trustee, he is sued as representing the debtors estate, or when made a party to any cause or matter on the application of another party, unless the Court otherwise directs.

4. And again under the sub-heading Trustees, para. 218:

He, (i.e., a trustee appointed to fill the office of trustee of the property 6f a bankrupt and not the Official Receiver) is in general personally liable for all costs incurred in the course of litigation instituted by him or against him, save where an action is brought against him as representing the estate, or he is made a party to any cause on the application of any other party thereto, and the Court does not direct that he shall be liable.

5. And again in paragraph 230:

Where a trustee brings or defends an action as a litigant, he is as between himself and the other parties to the action like any other litigant; that is to say, he must pay any debt, damages, or costs which the other litigants recover against him out of his own pocket, and get reimbursement if entitled to it, out of the bankrupts property.

6. The first two propositions are founded upon Rule 108(3) of the rules framed under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, and the last proposition is quoted from Ex parte Angerstain : In re Angerstein (1874) 9 Ch. App.

479. Rule 108(3) of the