Skip to content


Maddukuri Rattamma and ors. Vs. Mattina Venkata Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Family
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1391 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad694
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10
AppellantMaddukuri Rattamma and ors.
RespondentMattina Venkata Rao and anr.
Appellant AdvocateN. Bapiraju, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.V. Vallabhacharyulu, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredVenkatagiri v. Hindu Religious Endowments.. Madras
Excerpt:
- - it cannot be said that it erred in law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or acted with material irregularity or caused a material failure of justice by passing the order it did......they will not be binding on them. the debts of these creditors are not mentioned eo nomine there to make it imperative for these creditors to add themselves as parties to protect their interests. it is alleged that the official receiver is apathetic and indifferent and will not fight out their interests. if that is so, they can apply to the insolvency court, prove this extraordinary allegation, and get themselves appointed as special receivers, and get themselves added as defendants in the suit as such special receivers. the lower court has a discretion to add these creditors or not. it cannot be said that it erred in law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or acted with material irregularity or caused a material failure of justice by passing the order it did. this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. I see no reason to interfere in revision. All simple creditors need not be brought on record in a partition suit. Order 1 Rule 10, Civil P. C., has the word 'may' and not 'shall.' Such creditors can always file suits and get the properties of the minor plaintiffs attached before judgment if justified and allowable. The father has been adjudicated insolvent in I. P. No. 5 of 1948, and the Official Receiver, East Godavari, is defendant 5. It is alleged by the petitioners that all the debts due to these creditors are shown in the schedule prepared in the insolvency petition. So, the Official Receiver can protect the interest of all the creditors, and he is the proper person to do so. The ruling in Official Assignee, Madras v. Ramchandra Iyer : AIR1928Mad735 , and other rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners require nothing more. No doubt, the minor plaintiffs allege that their father has incurred some debts for illegal or immoral purposes, and that they will not be binding on them. The debts of these creditors are not mentioned eo nomine there to make it imperative for these creditors to add themselves as parties to protect their interests. It is alleged that the Official Receiver is apathetic and indifferent and will not fight out their interests. If that is so, they can apply to the insolvency Court, prove this extraordinary allegation, and get themselves appointed as special receivers, and get themselves added as defendants in the suit as such special receivers. The lower Court has a discretion to add these creditors or not. It cannot be said that it erred in law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or acted with material irregularity or caused a material failure of justice by passing the order it did. This revision must be dismissed in view of that, and in view of the Privy Council ruling in Venkatagiri v. Hindu Religious Endowments.. Madras , it is dismissed, but, in the peculiar circumstances, without costs.


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