MATTAPALLI APPA RAO Vs. CHRAMAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of certain insolvency proceedings pending in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cocanada (I.A. No. 204 of 1937 in I.P. No. 29 of 1932). The petitioner was adjudged insolvent and all his properties became vested in the Official Receiver of East Godavari. On an application made by the petitioner under Section 66 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, it is stated that a monthly allowance of Rs. 50 out of the estate has been made in his favour by the learned Subordinate Judge. While this order was in force, the petitioner presented another application for an allotment of Rs. 4,000 to be made for celebrating the marriage of his daughter who had just attained the age of 14 years. It was conceded in the Subordinate Judge's Court that this amount included a sum of Rs. 2,000 which petitioner wanted for katnam (dowry). The balance of Rs. 2,000 was claimed by him for meeting the actual expenses of the marriage. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that in any event, the petitioner was not justified in claiming Rs. 2,000 to enable him to give it as dowry at the time of the marriage of his daughter and that it was not open to him to claim the balance of Rs. 2,000 under Section 66(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In the course of his order the learned Subordinate Judge has recorded that in his opinion, a sum of Rs. 500 would be sufficient for meeting the expenses of the marriage of the petitioner's daughter. This however was only an observation made by him in the course of his order.

(2.) On appeal to the learned District Judge of East Godavari, the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. It is against this order that the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the property of the insolvent must be deemed to have vested in the Official Receiver subject to all the liabilities that could have been enforced against it in the hands of the insolvent himself. In support of this proposition he has cited certain English decisions where the view taken is that the trustee in bankruptcy stands in the position of the bankrupt, that he takes the property of the insolvent subject to rights of third parties and that he is in effect, the legal representative of the bankrupt. Ex parte Holthausen : In re Scheibler (1874) 9 Ch. Ap. 722, In re Eastgate : Ex parte Ward (1905) 1 K.B. 465 and In re Mapleback : Ex parte Caldecott (1876) 4 Ch. D. 150. He has also cited the case reported in Sheobaran Singh V/s. Kulsum-un-nissa (1927) 52 M.L.J. 658 : L.R. 54 I.A. 204 : I.L.R. 49 All. 367 (P.C.), where a right of pre-emption to which a third party was entitled with regard to certain property of the insolvent was enforced subsequent to insolvency. The substance of these decisions has been summarised in Mulla's commentaries on the Provincial Insolvency Act where the learned author states that the property which the Official Receiver takes is the property of the bankrupt exactly as it stood in his person with all its advantages and all its burdens.