RAMASWAMI PILLAI Vs. SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises from a suit on a promissory note. The appellants are defendants 2 to 4, 6 and 7. The promissory note sued on, viz., Ext. B, dated 27.2.1111 was executed by the 1st defendant, mother of defendants 2 to 4, 6 and 7. This was executed for the principal and unpaid portion of interest under a promissory note Ext. A dated 4.3.1105. It was the plaintiff's case that the 1st defendant was the de facto manager of the Sub tarwad even after the 2nd defendant attained majority. The amount was alleged to have been borrowed for meeting the expenses in connection with a litigation to get a share of family properties. The contesting defendants stated that they were not aware of the execution of the promissory note, that it was not supported for any valid necessity, that the 1st defendant was not competent to bind the sub tarwad and that in any event the plaintiff could not obtain relief against the sub tarwad. The Trial Court found that the 1st defendant was the defacto manager of the sub tarwad and that the amount was borrowed for necessity binding on the sub tarwad. The suit was accordingly decreed in terms of the plaint. The findings were confirmed by the learned District Judge. These findings having become concurrent the only point for decision in this second appeal is whether the sub tarwad can be made liable on the promissory note executed by the 1st defendant.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to various decisions of the Travancore High Court wherein conflicting views were expressed. The latest of these is Narayanan Padmanabha Panicker v. Rayaran Dhananjaya Menon ( 1948 TLR 798 ). Relying on the decisions in Krishna Ayyar v. Krishnaswami Ayyar (23 Madras 597), Krishnanand Nath Khare v. Raja Ram Singh (44 All. 393), Mutsaddi Lal v. Sauhir ( 17 Lah. 311 ), Sirikantalal v. Siddeswari Prasad Narain Singh ( 1937 Pat. 455 ), Krishna Iyer v. Nangeli Ammal (39 Mad. 915), Abdul Majid Khan v. Saraswati Bai ( AIR 1934 PC 4 ) and Rama Subba Iyer v. Mahadeva Iyer ( 25 TLJ 737 ) it was held that a karnavan of a Marumakkathayam family as also the kartha of a joint Hindu family was entitled to borrow money in his own name for family purposes and that in such cases, the tarwad or the family would be liable for the debt, that as a debt due from the family it was recoverable from the family irrespective of whether it was evidenced by a promissory note, a bond or hypothecation bond and that there was nothing in the Negotiable Instruments Act which negatived the liability of a family for debts incurred in such circumstances. In Kesavan Namboori v. Narayani Amma ( 1953 KLT 459 ) a Bench of this Court held that it was too late in the day to raise the contention that a decree for realisation of the debt due under a Negotiable Instrument executed by the Karta could not be granted against the family. In view of this decision, the contention of the appellant that no decree could be passed against anybody except the executant of the promissory note is unsustainable.

(3.) In the result, I confirm the decree of the Court below and dismiss the Second Appeal with costs.