GANDU NAIKO ALIAS RAMCHANDRO NAIKO Vs. AKULO DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants and arises out of a suit on a handnote for Rs. 100 executed by defendant 1 father of defendants 2 to 6. Defendant 1 denied the execution of the handnote and also 9 denied certain alleged payments in part satisfaction of the handnote. Defendants 2 to 6 denied that they were joint with defendant 1 or that defendant 1 was the karta of the family. Both the Courts below have found that defendants 2 to 6 are joint with their father, that the latter is the karta of the family, that he executed the handnote and that consideration for the handnote passed.

(2.) It is contended, however, that the suit being a suit on a handnote defendants 2 to 6 are not liable. For this contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Abdul Majid Khan V/s. Saraswati Bai A.I.R. (1934) 1934. That was a suit on two hand notes executed by a person who was the karta of a joint Hindu family. The question that fell to be decided was whether the members of the joint family other than the karta could be made liable on the handnotes. The Privy Council investigated the question whether the other members of the family had benefited by the loan and having come to the conclusion that it was not proved that they had received any benefit from the loan it was held that they were not liable on the hand-notes.

(3.) That case has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court Baijnath Prasad V/s. Binda Prasad Singh A.I.R. 1939 Pat. 97. The position deducible from this case is that ordinarily, as provided in the Negotiable Instruments Act, the only person liable on a handnote is the person who executes it.