TRIPURAMALLU VENKATANARASU Vs. JAMILI VENKATARANGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts are few. One Venkataratnam was adjudged an inslvt in I. P. No. 13 of 1923 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur. He died on 10-12-1933 leaving behind him three sons. Between 1937 & 1939 the Official Receiver, Guntur, sold some of the properties of the joint family & realized certain moneys. In 1945 a certain Venkatanarasu obtained a decree in S. C. No. 60 of 1945 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, against the sons of Venkataratnam. After obtaining his decree Venkatanarasu applied in E. A. No. 214 of 1945 for the attachment of that part of the money in the hands of the Official Receiver which would represent the share of the sons of Venkataratnam. The Official Receiver then filed his objections in E. A. No. 37 of 1946 & prayed for the attachment being raised. The Subordinate Judge allowed the objections of the Official Receiver & raised the attachment. Against that order, Venkatanarasu came to this Ct in C. R. P. No. 1160 of 1946 which was disposed of on 20-7-1948. In the order made on that date this Ct directed that an enquiry should be made into the character & source of the funds now sought to be attached & claimed to be the property of title Judgment-debtors. The matter was remanded for disposal afresh in the light of the Observations made in that order.

(2.) After the case went back to the trial Ct this question was gone into & accepting a memo filed by the Official Receiver, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the property sold was the Joint family property of Venkataratnam & his sons. He however held that the fund in the hands of the Official Receiver should be utilised in the first instance to pay the debts of Venkataratnam & that the creditors of the sons would be entitled to proceed only against the surplus if any. In that view the E. P. filed by Venkatanarasu was dismissed & the claim petition filed by the Official Receiver allowed. Against that order these two revision petns have been filed.

(3.) The principal argument of Mr. Ramanarasu the learned Advocate for the petitioner may be put this way. The insolvency of a father does not by itself disrupt the joint family or bring about a severance in status. If the Official Receiver had not sold the properties of Venkataratnam & his sons those properties would have been joint family properties available for division among Venkataratnam & his sons. The fund into which the properties were converted by the Official Receiver retained the character of the properties from which it arose & must be treated as joint family property & liable to be divided among the sons. Just in the same way as a creditor who has obtained a decree against a son can attach his share in the immovable properties of the joint family so too he can attach the fund into which these properties have been converted. Mr. Ramanarasu recognised that it is open to a Hindu father to sell the share of his sons in order that he might pay antecedent debts not tainted with illegality or immorality. But he contends that till the money is actually paid over to the creditor it should be treated as an asset of the Joint family liable to & available for division. Consequently till the Official Receiver had actually paid out the moneys, the fund in his hands continued to retain the character of joint family property & is, therefore, liable to satisfy a decree that has been obtained against the sons.