RAJ KISHORE Vs. FIRM JAI NARAIN PARMATMA SAKAN, TIMBER MERCHANT, KABARI BAZAR SADAR MEERUT CANTONMENT, THROUGH JAI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Plaintiff's application in revision arising out of a suit for the hire of some golas and for the price of some golas which were not returned. The suit was filed by Raj Kishore, who described himself as the proprietor and manager of Firm Moolchand Rajkishore, Timber Merchants, doing business at Naya Bazar, Sadar, Meerut, Cant. The Defendant to this suit was Firm Jainarain Parmatma Saran, Timber Merchants doing business at Kabari Bazar, Meerut Cantt., through Jainarain and Parmatma Saran as owners of the aforesaid firm.

(2.) Two questions arose for determination in the suit. The first was, whether the Defendants were liable for the hire as also the price of the golas, and the second question that arose was whether the Plaintiff Raj Kishore could sue in the capacity in which he had sued, since it was admitted that the firm Mool Chand Rajkishore was a family firm. On the first question the finding of the court below is that the Plaintiff was entitled to the hire and the price of the golas claimed by him. On the second question the court below decided the matter against the Plaintiff and held that Rajkishore, being a junior member of the joint family, could not sue. It was clear from the statement of Rajkishore......and it may be here mentioned that that statement was in no way controverted by any other evidence-that he was the manager of the firm in which the family owned an interest. Raj Kishore's evidence clearly indicated-and it may further be mentioned that this evidence was believed by the court below-that his father, though, alive, was suffering from diabetes, and, therefore, did not look after the business of this firm and that it was Raj Kishore who looked after and carried on the business of this firm. The court below was of the opinion that this did not entitle Raj Kishore to claim to be the manager of the family business, and, therefore, he could not file the suit. In my judgment, the view of the trial court on this question was not correct. The position of a manager of a firm owned by a joint family is not to be confused with the position of the karta of a joint family. The contracts which were to be enforced in this case were entered into by the Defendants with the Plaintiff of the suit. Therefore, prima facie he was entitled to recover the moneys to which he was entitled under that contract. The fact that other members of the family had an interest in the profits of the firm did not make it obligatory for the Plaintiff to join them as parties to the suit. Support for this view of mine can be had from decision reported in Kishan Prasad Vs. Har Narain Singh, ILR 33 All. 272 . In that case it was pointed out that there was no principle of law or any custom applicable to a case like this, according to which the managing; member of a Hindu joint family entrusted with the management of the business must be held incompetent to enforce at law the ordinary business contracts that they are entitled to make or discharge in their names. It is settled law that a junior member of a joint Hindu family can act as manager of the family. The position of a manager or a karta devolves on an individual either because of the fact that he happens to be the eldest member of the family and thereby takes up himself the responsibilities of managing the family affairs, or it may devolve upon an individual because the members forming the joint family agree to appoint him as their manager or karta. In the case before me, it appears from the evidence of the Plaintiff that he acted as manager by a sort of agreement of the members of the family, and, therefore, he was competent to sue in this particular instance.

(3.) For the reasons given above, I allow this application in revision, set aside the decree of the court below, and decree the Plaintiff's suit with costs. Revision allowed.