( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of proceedings under Section 183, Companies Act. The facts briefly stated are as follows.

( 2 ) IN 1921, 703 shares were purchased by one Har Krishna Das. Then in 1928 another lot of shares 718 in number were purchased in the name of Hari Krishna Das, but in reality it was purchased by Har Krishna Das together with two other persons named Narottam Das and Ram chandra Rao Naik Kalia. These shares were registered in the name of Har Krishna Das alone. Later on 239 out of these 718 shares were registered in the name of Narottam Das and the remaining 479 shares remained registered in the name of Har Krishna Das. Har Krishna Das died in 1938. On 1-8-1939 the Banaras Bank went into liquidation and the liquidators had to determine who the legal representatives and heirs of Har Krishna Das were who should be brought on the register of share-holders as contributories. At his death, Har Krishna Das had only one brother living, namely, Udai Karau Das. He had four other brothers who had died prior to his death. The liquidators held that Udai Karan Das was the legal representative and heir of Har Krishna Das. Udai Karan Das objected to this finding and on an appeal by him under Section 183, the Company Judge, Braund, J. upheld the official liquidators order and directed the name of Udai Karan Das to be recorded as a contributory. He, however, stated that he was not deciding the question as to from which property the amount due upon the shares was to be realised. Udai Karan Das also died on 10-9-1942 and again the question of bringing his heirs and legal representatives on the record arose. The official liquidators issued notices to his son Girdhar Das and to his six nephews, Jagmohan Das, Vithal das, Bal-labh Das, Jamna Das, Bal Krishna Das and Brij Jiwan Das. They all objected to their names being brought on the record as the heirs and legal representatives of Udai Karan Das deceased and to be considered as contributories, but the official liquidators decided that all of them were liable to be recorded as contributories. There was an appeal to the Company Judge, Honble Mr. Justice Mootham as he then was. He decided that the view taken by the official liquidators was correct in so far as 702 shares purchased by Har Krishna Das in 1921 were concerned, but he was of opinion that the evidence on the record with regard to the other lot of 479 shares which also formerly stood in the name of har Krishna Das was not sufficient and he deferred the decision of the question of representation about those shares. In this appeal we are concerned with 703 shares alone.

( 3 ) THE dispute before the learned Company Judge was really between the son of Udai Karan Das and his six nephews on the one hand and the three daughters sons of Har Krishna Das. It may be mentioned that Har Krishna Das had left no son but had left two daughters Shrimati Jawahir kaur and Shrimati Kundan Kaur. These daughters were dead and the three respondents, Bal mukand, Har Govind and Vittal Das Gothi are their sons.

( 4 ) BEFORE the official liquidators as well as before the learned Company Judge it was admitted that Har Krishna Das was a member of a joint Hindu family with all his brothers and nephews, that he owned no personal property of his own and that consequently the shares in question (we are only dealing with 703 shares purchased in 1921) formed part of the property of the joint family. This position was also not disputed before us. Udai Karaa Das having been substituted in place of Har Krishna Das and that decision of the company Judge having become final, we must take it that Udai Karan Das was the legal representative and heir of Har Krishna Das. The question now is who should be treated as the legal representatives and heirs of Udai Karan Das after his death in 1942. The question has to be decided under Section 160 of the Companies Act which lays down that

if a contributory dies either before or after he has been placed on the li