Skip to content


Sayad Daud Sayad Mahomed Vs. Mulna Mahomed Sayad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Limitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 120 of 1925
Judge
Reported in(1926)28BOMLR554
AppellantSayad Daud Sayad Mahomed
RespondentMulna Mahomed Sayad
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....act (ix of 1908), section 22-institution of suit-suit by an adjudicated insolvent-substitution of official assignee-addition of new plaintiff.;on the adjudication of an insolvent, the whole of his property passes to the official assignee by virtue of the vesting order passed under the presidency towns insolvency act (ix of 1908). nothing is thereafter left in the insolvent to give him a cause of action, ; a suit brought by an insolvent in his own name, after his adjudication, is not maintainable; and the substitution of the name of the official assignee as a later date amounts be the addition of a new plaintiff, within the meaning of section 22 of the indian limitation act 1908. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other..........incompetent to sue after the vesting order, the whole of the insolvent's property passed to the official assignee by virtue of the presidency towns insolvency act. consequently, nothing was left vesting in the insolvent which would give him a cause of action, it is true that an insolvent does not lose absolutely all interests in his property when he is adjudicated. he may, for instance, be able to settle with his creditors and get his property back. but the vesting order for the time being is paramount, and, even if an insolvent may eventually be entitled to what may remain as surplus after satisfying his creditors, it is perfectly clear that he cannot be allowed to take steps after he is adjudicated to recover his property. that would be opening the door to fraudulent actions to the.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the Official Assignee in this case was a new paintiff, and the insolvent who filed his suit four days after he had been adjudicated on his own petition in Bombay was incompetent to sue After the vesting order, the whole of the insolvent's property passed to the Official Assignee by virtue of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Consequently, nothing was left vesting in the insolvent which would give him a cause of action, It is true that an insolvent does not lose absolutely all interests in his property when he is adjudicated. He may, for instance, be able to settle with his creditors and get his property back. But the vesting order for the time being is paramount, and, even if an insolvent may eventually be entitled to what may remain as surplus after satisfying his creditors, it is perfectly clear that he cannot be allowed to take steps after he is adjudicated to recover his property. That would be opening the door to fraudulent actions to the detriment of the creditors. On the other hand, it seems unfortunate that an insolvent by concealing a particular asset from the Official Assignee and filing a suit to recover it for himself may cause damage to his creditors. But that is how the law stands, and the Official Assignee's only remedy is to report that the insolvent has concealed his assets.

2. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //