Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In this case the insolvent was adjudicated on 2nd December 1919. A partition-deed had been previously executed on 26th November 1919. On 1st April 1920 the Official Assignee took out a notice of motion asking that the partition-deed should be declared void and for an order that the interest of the minor sons in the family property should be vested in the Official Assignee. This motion formed the subject-matter of O.S. A. No. 49 of 1921 and the judgment is reported in Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 55. It was then held that the partition-deed was void and that the interest of the minor sons in the property did not vest in the Official Assignee, but that, inasmuch as the Official Assignee stood in the shoes of the insolvent the insolvent's rights as managing member so far as they can be exercised for his own benefit passed to the Official Assignee, that is, he can alienate the minor sons' interest in the joint property for the purpose of paying the insolvent's debts unless they were incurred for illegal or immoral purposes. The first part of the decision is in accordance with the later decision of the Privy Council in Satnarain v. Behari Lal A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 18, and the second part of the decision is in accordance with the principle of law enunciated in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Balavenkata Seetharama v. Official Receiver, Tanjore A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 994, a decision on the Provincial Insolvency Act.