MANNE VENKATA NARAYUDU Vs. THAMMINEEDI SUBBA RAO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MANNE VENKATA NARAYUDU
THAMMINEEDI SUBBA RAO
Click here to view full judgement.
Obul Reddi, J. -
(1.) Our learned brother, A. D. V. Reddy, J has referred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to a Division Bench on the ground that certain questions have not been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Raja V. V. S. Raju Bhadur v. Official Receiver, AIR 1965 Andh Pra 451. The relevant portion of the order of reference dealing with the questions said to have not been considered by the Division Bench reads: "The question whether it is only the fathers right to private alienation that is terminated on attachment or the right of the other creditors and the court to go into the question whether the sons are also liable for the joint family debts due to the other creditors is also terminated by reason of the attachment has not been considered. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx If there had been no insolvency, they ( creditors ) could have filed suits impleading the sons for adjudication of their claims. On adjudication of the father as an insolvent they are entitled to file petitions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, impleading the sons also as parties, and the Court in such a case has to go into the question whether the sons shares will be liable, and if the Court find that the sons shares also would be liable, though the act of insolvency had been committed by the father the court can direct the Official Receiver to exercise the right of sale with regard to the sons shares also for the discharge of the debts. These questions have not been considered by the Division Bench in the above case".
(2.) The decision in Raju Bahadurs case, AIR 1965 Andh Pra 451, was relied upon before the learned Judge by the respondents in answer to a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Subba Rao v. Official Receiver, West Godavari, AIR 1965 Andh Pra 52. The learned Single Judge Venkatesam, J., was of the view that an attachment of the sons shares by a decree-holder prior to the adjudication of the father as an insolvent only puts an end to the power of disposal of the father and of the Official Receiver under Section 28-A of the Act to dispose of the sons shares, but will not preclude the Official Receiver from obtaining a declaration from the insolvency Court that the Sons shares are liable for discharge of the debts due in the several creditors which are not illegal or immoral and have the property sold through Court.
(3.) While the learned Counsel for the appellants, ( Petitioners Creditors ), Mr. C. V. Ramanujachari and Mr. C. Srinivasachari, placed strong reliance upon the decision of Venkatesam, J., in Subba Rao v. Official Receiver, West Godavari, AIR 1965 Andh Pra 52; Mr. J. V. Suryanarayana Rao appearing for the respondents contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is opposed not only to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Raju Bahadurs case, AIR 1965 Andh Pra 451, but to the view so far consistently taken by the Madras High Court which was followed by the Division Bench.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.