1. The appellant is a minor son of an undischarged insolvent born to him after his adjudication. On his behalf a novel claim was made before the District Judge, Anantapur, to his half share in the property of his father contending that the Official Receiver had no power to sell it. It is really a remarkable position, born of legalistic ingenuity, from the impact of insolvency on Hindu joint family law. The argument in support of this position by Mr. Ramalinga Reddy is that the Official Receiver is in the position of a trustee for the insolvent. He is far more a trustee for the creditors, in that all the property of the insolvent is vested in him for sale and distribution of the proceeds in the first instance to them. To consider seriously the position of a son born to a Hindu insolvent after the adjudication and before the insolvency is terminated, would be tantamount to encouraging his marrying more than one wife after his adjudication in the hope of getting as many sons as he can who will be able to claim a share in his estate any time, according to Mr. Ramalinga Reddy, up to the termination of the administration of the insolvency. This is, of course, an absurd position, but I am stating it here only to show that this appeal has no substance at all.
2. Mr. Srinivasan for the respondent has referred me to the decision Kandasami Pillai v. Kandasami Pillai : AIR1947Mad372 which he says is the only authority he could find deals at all with the point raised. That case arose out of some sales by the Official Receiver after the adjudication was annulled, and there was an order continuing the vesting of the insolvent's estate in him. It has no bearing whatsoever on the present contention. It is to say the least of it, novel and one made in an excess of optimism.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.