SAHU RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. SETH SRINARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of four suits based on four hundis executed in November 1914 by Harnam Singh deceased. The defendants-appellants are nephews of Harnam Singh and formed a joint family with him. It has been found by both the Courts below that the debts were incurred in connection with the marriage of one of the appellants, Sahu Raghunath Singh, and that the amount borrowed for the purpose of the marriage was not excessive in view of the status of the family. On this finding it necessarily follows, and it has been held by the Court below that the debts were incurred for legal necessity.

(2.) Two pleas have been urged in appeal. The first is that, inasmuch as a hundi is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it could not be enforced against the appellants whether it was incurred on behalf of the joint family or not. This point, as the learned Advocate for the appellants, admits, has been definitely decided against him in the recent case of Krishnanand Nath Khare V/s. Raja Ram Singh 66 Ind. Cas. 150 : 20 A.L.J. 233 : (1922) A.I.R. (A) 116 : 44 A. 393. It is sufficient for us to say that we agree entirely with the judgment in that case and that we propose to follow it.

(3.) The second point taken is that, because the debts were simple debts not secured on the joint family property they must be treated as personal debts of the manager and are not binding on the other members of the joint family. The learned Counsel for the appellants goes so far as to argue that even where there is a distinct finding that the debts were incurred by the manager as such and on behalf of the joint family, no liability is incurred except a personal liability on the part of the manager.