OFFICIAL RECEIVER Vs. G PRABHAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge at Kavali, Nellore District dated 5-6-1990 in E.A.No.133 of 1990 in E.P.No.27 of 1987 in O.S.No. 108 of 1981.

(2.) The 1st respondent's husband filed the suit against the 5th respondent herein and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.27 of 1987. The 5th respondent herein filed I.P.No.6 of 1989 and the petitioner was appointed as interim receiver on 26-10-1989 and he took possession of the property on 9-2-1990. Respondents 1 to 4 brought the properties of the 5th respondent, who is the manager of the joint family to sale. The 1st respondent filed a counter stating that the Judgment-debtor has got l/4th share in the joint family property and his sons are also liable to discharge the decree debt. It is also stated that as the 5th respondent is adjudged as an insolvent, his share in the joint family property alone vests in the Official Receiver. It is contended that the petitioner-Official Receiver has no right to deal with the properties of the sons of the Judgment-debtor. The petitioner contended that under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, he is entitled for administration of the E.P. Schedule Property for the benefit of the general body of the creditors. On the other hand, it is contended by the decree-holder that it is only the 5th respondent that has filed the insolvency petition and the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the joint family properties in which the sons have got a share and in case a sale is to be held by this Court, no prejudice will be caused to the 5th respondent-judgment-debtor or the general body of the creditors and the shares of the 5th respondent from the sale proceeds can be transferred to the petitioner for administration. The sons of the Judgment-debtor have also filed O.S.No.304 of 1984 for partition and they did not challenge the decree of the decree-holder. They also filed E.A.No.43 of 1988 to raise the attachment of their 2/3rd share and the lower Court specifically held that there was no material or even any allegations to show that the debt was 'Ayyavaharika' debt and if the debt is not 'Ayyavaharika' debt, under the doctrine of pious obligation, the decree obtained by the decree-holder is binding on the sons of the Judgment-debtor. The lower Court also negatived the contention of the petitioner that if at all the property is to be sold with regard to the share of the sons of the Judgment- debtor a fresh proclamation is to be issued. After considering the petition and counter filed by the parties, the lower Court held that the petition for stay of the sale is refused and further held that the sale proceeds pertaining to the share of the Judgment-debtor may be transferred to the Official Receiver i.e. the petitioner herein for better administration.

(3.) There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. I find no merits in the CRP. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.