Skip to content


Varadarajan (Minor) by Next Friend S. Ranganatha Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Mad792; 75Ind.Cas.471
AppellantVaradarajan (Minor) by Next Friend S. Ranganatha Rao
RespondentSrinivasa Rao and ors.
Cases ReferredLal v. Sat Narain
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint family--insolvency of manager--shares of other members, whether vest in official receiver. - .....defendant became insolvent. the plaintiff joined in the partition suit certain alienees of the joint family property alleging that the consideration was such that the transactions were not binding on him. the case came up before the district munsif and then on to the district judge who remanded the matter to the district munsif again for finding on the question whether the consideration for these assignments was of a nature to bind the son. the findings were given and the case came up again and was heard on the findings by the subordinate judge. the subordinate judge took no notice of the finding and did not enquire at all into any of the matters considered by the district judge as relevant, but accepted the contention that, as the first defendant had become an insolvent, the whole.....
Judgment:

Walter Schwabe, C.J.

1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Trichinopoly, in a partition suit. The plaintiff was the son of the first defendant and they were puisne members of a joint Hindu family. At one time before the suit the first defendant became insolvent. The plaintiff joined in the partition suit certain alienees of the joint family property alleging that the consideration was such that the transactions were not binding on him. The case came up before the District Munsif and then on to the District Judge who remanded the matter to the District Munsif again for finding on the question whether the consideration for these assignments was of a nature to bind the son. The findings were given and the case came up again and was heard on the findings by the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge took no notice of the finding and did not enquire at all into any of the matters considered by the District Judge as relevant, but accepted the contention that, as the first defendant had become an insolvent, the whole joint family property vested in the Official Receiver, and, therefore, the son had no claim to partition and could not tare any steps to recover this alienated property from the alienees. In my judgment, that is not the law. The matter has recently been before this Court in the Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar 68 Ind. Cas. 898 : 16 L.W. 559 : (1922) M.W.N. 653 : 43 M.J. 569 : (1923) A.L.R. (M.) 55 : 46 M. 54 when I expressed my views to be that, on the insolvency of the managing member of a joint Hindu family, the Official Assignee succeeded to the undivided interest of the insolvent in the joint property and his rights as managing member so far as they can be exercised for his own benefit, but he is not entitled to have vested in him the shares of the other members though he is entitled to deal with them as the insolvent would lawfully have done if there be no insolvency.

2. There has since been a decision of the Full Bench in Lahore, Bihari, Lal v. Sat Narain 69 Ind. Cas. 486 : 3 L. 329 : A.I.R (1923) 1 (F.B.) in which the Court, though expressing preference for the view of this Court which was not before it, held itself bound by authority to decide that the whole joint family property vests in the Official Assignee. I think we must follow the decision of the Bench of this Court. It follows from that that the decision of the Subordinate Judge In this case is wrong and the matter must be remanded to the Subordinate Judge, Trichinopoly, to be heard from the stage at which it had arrived on return of the findings called for by the District Judge. It seems to me necessary that the Official Receiver of the second defendant should be a party. The point was raised early in the case, and notice must be given to him so that he may come before the Court, if so advised.

3. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs on this appeal.

Coleridge, J.

4. I concur.


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