Coherent Identifier About this item: 20.500.12592/kb36sc

Constituent Assembly of India (Legislative) Debates. Saturday 3rd April 1948 Official Report




1934 be taken into consideration." The purpose of the amending Bill has been explained in the aims and objecte The scope of the Act has been extended to the States that have acceded so that we may take up the control of aircraft and aerodromes situated in the Stater that have acceded to the Indian Union. [...] and shall become devisible amor g the creditors. '. Now it had been held in a long series of decisions by all the High Courts prior to 1942 that because of the wording of section 28 the power of the father as well as the power of the Manager vests in the Official Receiver foe the purpose of selling the joint family properties. [...] 'Therfore it wes held it would not come ender the ileAnition of `property' in Section 2(d); but it bad been held that under section 28 even though father's power does not come under the definition of 'property' under 2(d) because of the wording of section 28 even the power of the father and the power of the manager wculd vest in the Official Receiver for the purnose of sale of the joint fami [...] purchased in the luSo‘vency court in the case of the !tuner's insolvency as well as in the insolvency of the manager they purchased the property uuder the impression vatic they would be getting the son's share in the case of the father's psolvencY and the co-parceners' interests in the case of toe manager's insolvency where the dabts are binding on the family. [...] In 1943 this matter came up in a Veil Bench decision of the Madras High Court where the power of a father o dispose of his son 's share also or Manager's power to dispose of the right of the other members of the family in case the Manager is declared insolvent whether the Managex had the right to extend it to the rights of the son or to the rights of other members of the family was considered.


government politics public policy

SARF Document ID