SHEO NARAIN Vs. BISHAMBHAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against so much of a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated September 24th, 1903, as makes the appellant personally liable under a decree of that date passed against him and other defendants.

(2.) The appellant and other members of his family constituted a joint undivided Hindu family, owners as such of trading and banking firms at Cawnpore and Lucknow. The firm at Cawnpore was known by the style of Jagat Nath Thandi Mal, and at Lucknow by that of Sheo Prasad Khazanchi. The principal defendant Lala Sheo Prasad Rai Bahadur was treasurer of the branches of the Bank of Bengal at Cawnpore and Lucknow and had occupied that position for many years. It was on his appointment to be the treasurer at Lucknow that the firm of Sheo Prasad Khazanchi was established there. That firm failed and ceased to do any new business in the early part of 1902. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff respondent to recover principal with interest due thereon, some Rs. 6,000 or thereabouts, deposited by him from time to time in the Lucknow firm of Sheo Prasad Khazanchi, The interest, on the deposit was payable monthly, and the last payment on account of interest was in June 1902; the last deposit of principal was in October 1900. He has obtained a decree in full against all the defendants, and also a personal decree against the defendants, except those who had not attained majority. It is against this latter portion of the decree that the appellant Bishambhar Nath has instituted this appeal. He is the eldest son of the defendant Sheo Prasad Rai Bahadur.

(3.) In the early stages of this suit the date at which the appellant attained majority was hotly contested. It is now however admitted that he was born on November 9th, 1883, and so attained eighteen years of age on November 9th, 1901. It is contended on behalf of the defendant appellant that though his interest in the joint family property was liable to satisfy any lawful debts contracted by the firm during his nonage, he would not be personally liable for such debts unless it was shown that after attaining majority he had taken an active part in managing the business of the firm, and so might be considered to have ratified contracts entered into while he was still a minor.