Insolvency and money decrees: Official Assignee cannot maintain an appeal outside the insolvent's property, and the summary decree stood.

An appeal against a money decree did not abate merely because the appellants were adjudicated insolvents, since the Official Assignee's power to continue proceedings extends only to matters relating to the insolvent's property. A challenge to a money decree was treated as outside that scope, even if it may indirectly affect the estate. Separately, the Court found no ground to interfere with the summary decree because summons for judgment had been served, no timely leave to defend was sought, and no credible defence to the promissory notes was shown. The challenge to the decree therefore failed and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal against a money decree abated on the appellants' adjudication as insolvents and whether the Official Assignee could continue the appeal; (ii) Whether the appellants had made out any ground to interfere with the summary decree passed in the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal against a money decree abated on the appellants' adjudication as insolvents and whether the Official Assignee could continue the appeal.

Analysis: On the statutory scheme, the property of the insolvent vests in the Official Assignee, and the Official Assignee may institute, defend or continue proceedings only where they relate to the property of the insolvent. A challenge to a money decree is not a proceeding relating to the property of the insolvent merely because it may indirectly affect the estate. The provisions of Order 22, Rules 8 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 do not extend the Official Assignee's power to maintain such an appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal did not abate, but the Official Assignee could not maintain it.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had made out any ground to interfere with the summary decree passed in the suit.

Analysis: The summons for judgment had been served, yet no application for leave to defend was filed within time. The explanation that the appellants were uneducated was not accepted, and the record did not support a credible defence to the promissory notes. The Court found no basis to dislodge the summary decree.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the decree, and the appellants' challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellants' challenge to the money decree was rejected on merits, and the appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal against a money decree does not constitute a proceeding relating to the property of an insolvent for purposes of the Official Assignee's power to continue proceedings, and insolvency does not by itself cause such an appeal to abate.

---