S HARI RAO Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised here is whether the insolvent has a right of appeal against an order con-firming a sale of part of the estate which was originally his and subsequently vested in the Official Assignee, an order which he sought to oppose. The matter was referred to a Full Bench in view of what were represented to be the directly conflicting decision of this Court in Sivasubramania Pillai V/s. Theethiappa Pillai A.I.R. 1924 Mad.163, and of the Allahabad High Court in Sakhawat Ali V/s. Radha Mohan [1919] 41 All. 243. We observe that the English decisions on the subject were not cited so far as appears from the report to the Madras Court. We have examined those decisions and come to the conclusion that they ought to be followed.

(2.) The only ground on which the insolvent's right to appeal can be based is that he is a person aggrieved because his. estate having vested in the Official Assignee he is nevertheless entitled to say that if all the claims of the creditors who had proved were set aside or discharged by payment, he would have an interest in the surplus which might be left over. The leading English cases, Ex parte Sheffield [1879] 10 Ch. D. 434 and In re Lead-beater [1879] 10 Ch. D. 388 have disposed of this contention on grounds which, we think, are unanswerable. The insolvent has no legal interest but has merely a hope or expectation; and, as James, L.J., pointed out, the mischief of allowing a bankrupt, on the contingent chance of his ultimately acquiring title to some surplus which might never be realized, to interfere with and embarrass the administration of the estate would be immeasurable. We are, therefore, of opinion that the insolvent has no right of appeal which will, therefore, stand dismissed. The question referred to us was perhaps not rightly framed, and I say so with the more freedom because I drafted it myself. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by Krishnan, J., and I agree that we can follow the ruling in Sakhawat Ali V/s. Radha Mohan [1919] 41 All. 243 without the necessity of saying that Sivasuhramania Pillai V/s. Theethiappa Pillai A.I.R 1924 Mad. 163 was wrongly decided. The right claimed by the insolvent in the latter case was to object to a creditor's proof and that is not directly before us. Beasley, J.

(3.) I concur. Krishnan, J.