GENDALAL Vs. NANALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances giving rise to this Special Appea1 directed against a decision of Single Judge of this Court are that Gendalal, Jaidayal and shankerlal instituted a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Dhar, for redemption of certain pledged ornaments. In the body of the plaint the Plaintiffs described themselves as owners of the shop 'Surajmal Mamraj'. The Defendant while denying the Plaintiffs' claim on merits also pleaded that the business carried on by the Plaintiffs was a joint family business and that as all the members of the family had not been included in the suit as Plaintiffs, the suit was not maintainable.

(2.) MR . Bharucha, learned Counsel for the Appellants, first urged that as Gendalal, Jaidayal and shankarlal were the managers of the joint family business, they were entitled to sue on behalf of the members of the joint family and that it was not necessary to make other members of the family parties to the suit. In my opinion this contention must be given effect to. From the satement of Shankarlal it is clear that Shankarlal, Gendalal and Jaidayal were the managers of joint family business. He made the statement nqdku dk uke lwjtey ekejkt gS] vkSj nqdku ds dkfjUns ge rhuksa eqíbZ;ku gSa A

(3.) FOR the above reasons the decision of the learned Single Judge must be set aside and Civil Second Appeal No. 62 of 1949 preferred by the Plaintiffs must be heard by a Single Judge on the grounds raised in the appeal. There would be no border as to costs in this appeal.