S KRISHNASWAMI AIYAR, LATE MINOR BY GUARDIAN METERNAL UNCLE,DORASWAMI AIYAR BUT NOW DECLARED MAJOR AND GUARDIAN DISCHARGED Vs. RAVA RAMANADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) has reported no instructions and the appeal has, therefore, been heard ex parte.

(2.) The appeal is by the third defendant, against so much of the decree of the lower Court as declared that his interest in the joint family properties is also liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of the plaint claim. The material facts are as follows: defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of one Sundaram Aiyar who died in May, 1922, leaving him surviving, three sons- the first defendant (then aged about 20 and the other two-defendants, minors at that time). The third defendant attained majority only pending this appeal. During his lifetime, Sundaram Aiyar started a mundy business in February, 1920, in partnership with one Narasinga Rao and in the course of this business he had dealings with the plaintiff's firm. It has been stated on behalf of the appellant - and we see nothing on record to the contrary - that at the time of his death Sundaram Aiyar left no debts. Any how, it is common ground that the present claim of the plaintiff represents the unpaid balance of the price of goods supplied by him between September, 1922, and March, 1926, to the business carried on by the first defendant in partnership with Narasinga Rao.

(3.) In the plaint, a decree is claimed against defendants 2 and 3, on the footing that the trade in question had been started by their father and continued by the sons for the benefit of the family. As stated already, so far as the third defendant was concerned, there was no question of his being a contractual party to the new business in partnership with Narasinga Rao. The learned Judge has held that the third defendant's interest in the joint family property is also liable for the plaintiff's claim because the trade begun by the father and continued by defendants 1 and 2 is a family or ancestral trade; and in support of that proposition he relied on the decision in Subbaraya Mudali V/s. Thangavelu Mudali (1922) 45 M.L.J. 44.