ARREPU VENKATARAMANAYYA Vs. BILI BANGARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies in this case and reliance has been placed upon the Frill Bench decision of this Court; in Hari Rao V/s. Official Assignee, Madras 1926 Mad. 556, which is a decision under Section 8(2), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and it was there held that an insolvent whose estate has vested in the Official Assignee is not entitled to appeal as an "aggrieved person" within Section 8(2), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, against an order of a Judge rejecting his opposition to a sale of his estate by the Official Assignee which is the position here. THE decision in Sakhawat V/s. Radha Mohan 1919 All. 284 is followed in this Full Bench decision. That was one under the same section as that here in the Provincial insolvency Act and is therefore directly in point. It is quite clear that both the Full Bench decisions of this High Court and the Allahabad decision are based upon the view taken by the English Courts with regard to whether or not an insolvent person is under certain circumstances an aggrieved" person and reliance is placed in both those cases upon the observations of James, L.J., in Ex Parte Sheffield, In re Austin (1879) 10 Ch. D. 434 and on the case of In re Leadbitter (1878) 10 Ch. D. 388. It was stated by James, L.J., in the former case that the insolvent has no legal interest in any surplus which may be left over as a result of his insolvency but has merely a hope or expectation and that the mischief of allowing a bankrupt on the contingent chance of his ultimately acquiring title to some surplus which might never be realised, to interfere with and embarrass the administration of the estate would be immeasurable. THE Full Bench decision of this Court adopting and following as it does the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sakhawat V/s. Radha Mohan 1919 All. 284 which is under the Provincial Insolvency Act- the Act in question-must be accepted as governing this preliminary objection and as supporting it. Under these circumstances we must hold that no appeal lies and the appeal must be dismissed with the costs of respondent 2.