SOMA RAMANUJULU Vs. SOMA NARASIMHULU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, in O. S. No. 49 of 1954 on the file of his court. The appellant instituted the suit aforesaid against the six respondents in this appeal for the recovery of the money due under a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 4 in the action on 31 -3 -1953 marked as Ex. A -3 in the case.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 2 and 5, who are brothers, stared a yarn business under the name and style of "Soma Venkatayya Gari Narasiah" and that they have been carrying on the business for the benefit of their two respective families. Defendants 1 and 3 are the sons of the second defendant. Defendants 4 and 6 are the sons of the 5th defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that, for the benefit of the said joint family business, the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/ - on 31 -3 -1949, though the promissory note executed on that date was actually signed only by defendants 1 and 4. Some payments were made on that promissory note and, eventually, a fresh promissory note was executed on 31 -3 -1952 by defendants 1 and 4 in renewal of the prior promissory note for the amounts due thereon. The plaintiff alleged that the debt was for the benefit of the partnership business and for the respective joint families of the second and fifth defendants, that defendants 1 and 4 acted only as representatives of their respective joint families and as such, all the defendants were liable to discharge the debt due on the promissory note. Ex. A -3.

(3.) THE learned Judge, on a review of the evidence, found that only defendants 1 and 4 who were the executants of Ex. A -1 and its renewal under Ex. A -3 were liable, and that all ether defendants were not. He granted a decree against defendants 1 and 4 and dismissed the suit as regards the other defendants.