S KRISHNASAMY AYYAR Vs. RAVA RAMANATHAN

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.) This appeal is by the 3 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 Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of one Sundaram Ayyar who died in May 1922, leaving him surviving three sons, the 1 defendant (then aged about 20) and the other two defendants minors at the time). The 3 defendant attained majority only pending this appeal. During his lifetime, Sundaram Ayyar, started a mnndy 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 Ayyar left no debts. Anyhow, it is common ground that the present claim of the plaintiff represents the unpaid balance of the price of goods supplied by them, between September 1922 a March, 1926, to the business carried on by the 1st defendant in partnership with Narasinga Rao.

(3.) In the plaint, a decree is claimed against defendants Nos. 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 already stated, so far as the 3 defendant was concerned, there was no question of his being a contractual party to the new business in partnership with Narasinga Rao. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the 3 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 Nos. 1 and 2 as a family or ancestral trade; and in support of that-- proposition he relied on the decision in Subbaroya Mudali V/s. Thangavelu Pillai 72 Ind. Cas. 815 : 45 M.L.J. 44 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 33.