AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pakenham Walsh, J.—This suit was brought for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff exclusively and that his son who
had been declared an insolvent had no interest in it. The Official Receiver had sold the share of Plaintiff''s son in the properties to the defendant.
Several preliminary issues were raised, Nos. 2 to 6, and on one of them, issue No. 4, which was the only one decided the suit was dismissed.
That issue was: is the suit for a mere declaration without a prayer to set aside the sale by the Official Receiver and for possession sustainable? The
Court did not even decide the matter as to whether the suit without a prayer for possession was maintainable as will be seen from paragraph 8 of
the judgment. It dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit could not be maintained without a prayer to set aside the sale by the Official Receiver.
It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Basava Sankaran v. Arjaneyulu I.L.R.(1926) 50 Mad. 135 : 51 M.L.J. 529 that a sale by an
Official Receiver is a private sale. Vide also in Ma Sein v. P.L.S.K. Firm I.L.R.(1929) 7 Rang. 477. The lower Court follows a decision reported
in Rajani Kanta Shaha Banik Vs. Ramani Mohan Goswami and Others, . It will be seen, however, that in that case the plaintiff had already
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court for a decision of the question, evidently u/s 4 of the Insolvency Act; and such a decision
would, be final u/s 4(2), so that that decision can be maintained upon these grounds alone. In the present case, although there was such an
application made at one time, the Court refused to-decide the question and referred the plaintiff to a suit, saying:
The petitioner is at liberty to file a suit regarding the title to the property sold by the Official Receiver.
The order is dated 29th August, 1931. It is clear therefore that there has been no decision by the Court either u/s 4 of the Act or by way of
appeal against the Receiver''s sale u/s 68. It has not been attempted before us to maintain the correctness of the lower Court''s view. The appeal
must therefore be allowed and the suit remanded for trial on the further issues. Costs to abide the result. Refund of Court-fee.