KALURAM Vs. DIGRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff - respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.562.25 p. on the basis of a promissory note executed by Phulchand (defendant No.3) styling himself as 'owner, Karta and Wahiwatdar of shop' 'Champalal Mithulal. The suit was decreed by both the Courts below. The defendants except the executant of the promissory note Phulchand, now appeal.

(2.) TWO contentions have been raised before me in this appeal:

(3.) THE defendants Kaluram and his sons Sukhlal, Phulchand and Babulal, and grand -sons Amritlal, Champalal, Jainarayan and Rameshchandra carryon the business of cloth, grain and Kirana at Khandwa as members of a joint Hindu family. The grain shop is run in the name and style of 'Champalal Mithulal', the cloth shop in the name and style of 'Babulal Kaluram', a Kirana shop in the name and style of 'Kaluram Chhogmal' and another Kirana shop in the name and style of 'Rameshchandra Jainarayan'. The different shops are managed by different members of the joint Hindu family, as their managers respectively. The grain shop at Khandwa known as 'Champalal Mithulal' was looked after by Phulchand as its manager. On 16 -8 -1955, the defendant Phoolchand borrowed Rs. 5,600/ - from the plaintiff on a promissory note from the grain shop Champalal Mithulal' as its manager agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at Rs. 9 % per annum. On his failure to repay the amount due on the promissory note, the plaintiff sued the whole joint Hindu family for the realisation of his promissory -note debt. The suit has been decreed against the assets of the joint Hindu family by the Courts bellow. The defendants, except Phulchand, the executant of the promissory note, now appeal, contending that the whole of the joint family ought not to be made liable for the debt contracted by Phulchand. 4. In the instant case, the joint Hindu family of the defendants carries on several businesses as businesses of the joint Hindu family. In such a case, it would not be possible for the eldest male member as the manager to carryon and manage all the various businesses. Consequently, if, under the circumstances, various members of the joint Hindu family carry en or manage different businesses as managers thereof, their acts would have the force and validity as those of the eldest male member acting as the manager and be equally binding on the other members of the joint family to the extent of their share and interest in the joint family properties. Consequently, so long as such a manager carries on ordinary acts of borrowing monies incidental to the management of the family businesses. It would not be proper to expect from the persons dealing with such a manager that they should make an enquiry as to whether the debts were being incurred for the benefit of the joint family business, because the acts of borrowing are the usual and necessary incidents of a trading family. To hold otherwise, would not only hamper the manager in the proper management of the joint family business but also put a very onerous burden on the pessons dealing with such a trading family.