PETHI REDDI Vs. VENKATA REDDY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal which arises out of an application by the plaintiffs for the passing of a final decree in O.S. No. 64 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sankaridrug, at Salem. The facts which have given rise to this litigation are as follows. In the insolvency of the first defendant, the Official Receiver sold the rights in the disputed properties belonging to the joint family consisting of the first defendant and the plaintiffs to the second defendant in 1936 and 1939. By these purchases, in May, 1939, the second defendant became the owner of the entire rights of the joint family of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The second defendant later on assigned his rights to the third defendant.

(2.) WHILE matters were in this state, there was a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramasastrulu v. : AIR1942Mad682, dated 28th July, 1942, by which it was held that the right of a manager of a joint Hindu family to sell the family assets to discharge the debts which were payable by the father -manager is not property within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and therefore, the Official Receiver could not sell the son's share in the insolvency of the father as the right of the father to sell the son's share for debts which are neither illegal nor immoral do not vest in the Official Receiver. If that decision laid down the correct law, then the purchase by the second defendant of the entire rights of the family in the property would not be held valid; but what the second defendant obtained would only be a one third share of the first defendant.

(3.) THE situation, therefore, is as if the preliminary decree passed on 2nd February, 1943, stood confirmed by the Second Appeal decree, dated 18th November, 1946. The application out of which this Second Appeal has arisen is the original application for passing of the final decree filed by the plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to have the final decree passed on the footing that they can claim a two -third share in the properties. Hence the Second Appeal.