MAHALAKSHMI Vs. VVENKAN SETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff argues that the endorsement by the 2nd defendant binds 1 defendant the manager of the joint family because the pro-note was executed by 1 defendant for joint family trading purposes. The pronote states that the 1 defendant himself borrowed the money "for my necessity" and says nothing about family necessity or family trade. There is no allegation in the Civil Revision Petition that plaintiff was not allowed to adduce evidence; so I must take it that the whole case is before me. Hence, as I have said, the pronote prima facie is for 1 defendant's necessity only and the mere fact that 2nd defendant is his undivided son will not suffice to make a payment by him tantamount to an acknowledgment in law on behalf of his father, for the father's private debt, or suffice to raise any presumption that 2nd defendant acted as his father's agent in making such a payment.

(2.) Now can there be any decree against 2nd defendant as he is not a promisor under Ex. A. and is not liable in 1 defendant's life-time for such a pro-note debt?

(3.) I therefore dismiss the petition with costs.