SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL Vs. RAMAKRISHNA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think it is clear that the first plaintiff was suing as the manager of the family of himself and his minor brother. Though this is not so expressly stated in the cause-title, the averments in the plaint are sufficient to show that that was the position. If necessary, the plaint may have been amended to make the matter clear; but the petitioner's Vakil rightly admits that no useful purpose will be served by having a formal amendment now.

(2.) On the point whether a managing member can sue for a debt due to the family, I think, the question is now settled that he can. The question is dealt with fully in Sheikh Ibrahim Tharagan V/s. Rama Aiyar 10 Ind. Cas. 874 : 35 M. 685 : 21 M.L.J. 508 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 442 See also the ruling of the Privy Council in Sheo Shankar Ram V/s. Jaddo Kunwar 24 Ind. Cas. 504 : 36 A. 383 : 18 C.W.N. 968 : 16 M.L.T. 175 : (1914) M.W.N. 593 : 1 L.W. 645 : 20 C.L.J. 282 : 12 A.L.J. 1173 : 16 Bom. L.R. 810 : 41 I.A. 216 (P.C.).

(3.) There is no other question raised. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.