The interest of the sons in a joint Hindu family property does not vest in the Official Receiver upon the insolvency of the father, and therefore, the entire joint Hindu family property is not liable to be sold for the payment of the father's debts.

( 1 ) SECOND appeal from order No. 6 of 1971 is directed against the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1970 arising out of Miscellaneous Case No. 95 of 1966 and was filed by the Official receiver and Second Appeal from order No. 7 of 1971 has been filed against the decision in civil appeal No. 109 of 1970 in Misc. Case No. 95 of 1966 and was filed by Gita Ram who is the appellant in both the present appeals.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to these appeals are very simple. The appellant Gita Ram was carrying on ancestral business. Banarsi Das one was indebted to one Babu Lal for a sum of Rs. 900/- on the basis of a pronote dated 7-1-1966. He was also indebted to Gita Ram Appellant on the basis of a pronote dated 11-2-1963. Banarsi Das was also indebted to several other persons. He owed Rs. 2700/- to Bohre Basdeo Lal, Rs. 100/- to Ramlal, Rs. 150/- to Rajaram and Rs. 200/- to Madan gopal. All these debts related to the period much prior to the debts owed to Gita Ram and Babu lal.

( 3 ) ON 27-9-1963, Banarsi Das sold the house in dispute on his behalf and on behalf of his sons jagdish Babu and Ashok Babu. As Ashok Babu was a minor, in the sale deed both Banarsi Das and Jagdish Babu signed. The sale deed was registered on 20th August, 1963 (?) in favour of the appellant. The property sold was a Kachcha house and a Pakka room for Rs. 2000/ -.

( 4 ) A creditor Bohre Basdeo Lal filed a petition on 8-9-1963 for declaring Banarsi Das an insolvent. This petition was allowed and on 11-1-1064 Banarsi Das was adjudged an insolvent. Within three months of Banarsi Das being declared an insolvent, the Official Receiver made an application dated 5-5-1964 under Sections 4 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for the annulment of the sale deeds executed by Banarsi Das and Jagdish Babu in favour of the appellant gita Ram dated 27-9-1963.

( 5 ) GITA Ram contested the matter. The Insolvency Judge framed three issues, two of which are as follows :

1. Whether the transfer in favour of Gita Ram is void, fraudulent and liable to be annulled. 2. Whether Gita Ram was a transferee in good faith and if so, to what effect.

( 6 ) THE Insolvency Judge after framing the issues dealt with case and held that the sale deed was void and liable to be annulled and that the transfer in favour of Gita Ram had been made to show undue preference to two creditors of Banarsi Das, namely Gita Ram and Babu Lal.

( 7 ) GITA Ram preferred an appeal. The appellate Judge was satisfied that the transfer executed by the insolvent Banarsi Das was fraudulent and was void and was liable to be annulled as against the official receiver.

( 8 ) THE learned Judge took note of the argument on behalf of the appellant that the whole sale deed could not be annulled. It held that the insolvency Judge should further examine the matter and determine whether the whole sale deed should be annulled, or whether they should be annulled in respect of the share of Banarsi Das alone. The Insolvency Judge has awarded damages at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month against Gita Ram. The Appellate Judge held that this matter should also be examined afresh obviously in the context of a finding as to whether the whole of the sale deed was liable to be annulled, or only the sale in respect of the share of Gita ram alone. With these findings the mat-ter was remanded to the Insolvency Judge.

( 9 ) THIS time the Insolvency Judge held that the sale was liable to be annulled in respect of the share of Banarsi Das which came to be one-thirds of the house property alone, and that the sale in respect of the other two-third share could not be annulled as it did not belong to Banarsi Das. Accordingly, the sale was annulled in respect of the one-third interest of Banarsi Das alone.

( 10 ) BOTH Gita Ram and the Official Receiver were aggrieved. As mentioned earlier, the Official receiver filed civil appeal No. 107 of 1970, while Gita Ram filed civil appeal No. 109 of 1970 against the order of the Insolvency Judge.