(1.) This is a suit to recover a debt due on two promissory notes Exhibits 54 and 56, executed by defendant No. 3 in his personal capacity. The promissory note Exhibit 54 dated June 3, 1925, was executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 alone and the promissory note Exhibit 56 dated July 81, 1925, was executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. There is evidence to show that the dealings of both the plaintiffs are joint and the Court of first instance has found that both the plaintiffs are jointly interested in the two promissory notes in suit. This finding is not challenged by respondent's pleader. Exhibit 54 was for a sum of Rs. 5|200 due under an account and Exhibit 56 was for a sum of Rs. 300. Out of this sum of Rs. 300 a sum of Rs. 100 is stated to have been borrowed on June 7, 1925.
(2.) Five persons were impleaded as defendants one of whom, , viz., defendant No. 5, is a minor. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are full brothers and defendant No. 5 is their nephew. Plaintiffs alleged in paragraph 1 of the plaint as follows:- The defendants are the members of a joint undivided Hindu family and the of affairs of the family are managed by all the three persons, viz., defendants Nos 1- 2-3 as the leading members of the family. The transaction in suit has-been effected accordingly by defendant No. 3 with the plaintiffs for the purpose of the joint family of the defendants and the benefit and consequently all the defendants and the property belonging to their joint family are responsible for the plaintiffs claim.
(3.) All the defendants denied that defendants Nos. 1 to 5 formed a joint family with defendants Nos. 1 to 3 as managers of the family and alleged that defendant No. 3 entered into the suit transaction on his own responsibility. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, therefore, denied their liability to pay. Detailed contentions will be found in the written statements in the case. They are summed up at pages 7 and 8 of the print.