POMMALAI GOUNDAN AND ANR Vs. SETTIA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants have preferred this petition against the decree granted by the learned District Munsif, Sankaridrug.

(2.) The two defendants are the sons of one Kuppichi Goundan. Kuppichi Goundan borrowed a sum of Rs. 240 for his family expenses on 10th March, 1952 and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. On 27th February, 1955, Kuppichi Goundan paid a sum of Rs. 45 and made an endorsement on the suit promissory note itself. It is admitted that before the date of this endorsement Kuppichi Goundan and defendants 1 and 2 became divided. Kuppichi Goundan was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 24 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem. After the adjudication of the father, the executant of the promissory note, as insolvent, the plaintiff filed the suit against the present defendants, the sons of the insolvent. The trial Court found that the borrowing under Exhibit A-1 was for family expenses of the defendants and their father. The trial Court also found that the endorsement made on the promissory note by the father after the partition between himself and his sons can be relied on for the purpose of extending the period of limitation. The trial Court also found that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to implead the father as a party in the present suit. On the above findings the trial Court gave a decree to the plaintiff as prayed for.

(3.) As the contentions raised by the petitioners were of considerable importance and as the respondent was not represented I requested Mr. K. Raman to act as amicus curiae and he has given me considerable help in the disposal of this revision petition and I am thankful to him.