JUDGMENT Bennet, J.
1. This is an appeal against an order brought by Ram Ghulam minor son of an insolvent Mulchand. It is claimed by the appellant that there was a partition between him and his father and that the property in dispute was allotted to appellant, and his mother gave some vague evidence to that effect. Two lambardars gave evidence that there . had been no partition, and there is also the fact to be taken into account that the appellant is only a boy of 14 years of age, and therefore it is improbable that a partition between him and his father would have taken place. Accordingly we agree with the finding of fact of the learned District Judge that there has been no partition between the appellant and his father.
2. A further point was taken that on the insolvency of a Hindu father the interest of his son in the joint family property does not vest in the receiver, and that the share of the son should be discharged. This argument of the appellant was supported by the ruling in The Allahabad Bank Limited, Bareilly v. Bhagwan Das Johari A.I.R. l926 All. 262, and reference was made to the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported in Satnarain v. Bihari Lal A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 18. A later ruling of this Court reported in Om Prakash v. Moti Ram A.I.R. 1926 All. 447 interprets the ruling of the Privy Council in a different sense, and the interpretation placed upon that ruling in Om Prakash v. Moti Ram A.I.R. 1926 All. 447 has been followed in a Full Bench ruling reported in T.S. Balavenkata, Seetharama . Chettiar v. Official Receiver, Tanjore A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 994. Following the ruling of Om Prakash v. Moti Ram A.I.R. 1926 All. 447 we find that the receiver is entitled to sell not merely the share of the father that would fall on him at partition but the entire property in the father's hands belonging to the whole family consisting of himself and his son. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal with costs.