VISHAN SINGH Vs. NARNAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is brought by the plaintiffs against a decree of Mr. Sham Lai, Senior sub Judge, Dharamsala, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit against the defendants and holding that their liability is not personal but is only to the extent of the property of the firm in their hands. Both parties belonged to Bannu. On the 1st December 1946 a pronote was executed by Messrs. Mehr Chand Bhana Ram through bhagwan Singh Gandh in favour of Babu Bishan Singh Santokh Singh Gulati for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-with interest at eight annas per. cent per mensem. When Bhagwan Singh was coming to India from Bannu he was killed on the way and therefore the defendants in the present case are Narnajan Singh brother and mohindar Singh and Kartar Singh minor, sons of Bhagwan Singh through their uncle Naranjan Singh. Mr. Man-chanda has told us that of them Mohindar Singh has now become a major and Kartar Singh is still a minor.

(2.) IN the plaint it was alleged that Messrs Mehr Chand Bhana Ram. General merchants, were carrying on business at Bannu. Its proprietor and karinda was bhagwan Singh the father of defendants 2 and 3 and real brother of defendant 1, and that the money was borrowed for the purpose of running the shop and for the benefit of the joint Hindu family. It was prayed that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. A written statement was filed by Narnajan Singh wherein he denied that Bhagwan singh was a karta or had any authority to bind the other members of the family, but he appeared in Court and admitted that the document had been executed by bhagwan Singh, and the Judge had held that Bhagwan Singh was acting as the karta of the joint Hindu family and therefore the debt is binding on the family.

(3.) THE sole point before us is as to the personal liability of the members of the joint Hindu family in circumstances such as these. Of the three respondents those who were minors at the time when the document was executed or when the suit was brought cannot be held to be personally liable for the debts of the firm, and there is no authority which the researches of counsel have helped him in bringing out, nor do we know pf any such authority where minor members of a family have been held liable for a debt incurred by a father, even though it may be for a joint family business.