FATEH LAL Vs. BISHAMBHAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is connected with F.A. No. 314 of 1903 and several other appeals against decrees passed against the appellant and other defendants whereby the appellant is made personally liable for the amount of the decrees, The appellant and other members of his family constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family, owning as such an ancestral trading and banking firm at Cawnpore and Lucknow, the firm at Cawnpore being known by the style of Jagat Nath Thanti Mal and that at Lucknow by the style of Sheo Prasad Khazanchi. In our judgment delivered on the 28 of March 1906 in First Appeal No. 314 the circumstances under which the indebtedness arose are fully stated. The suit which has, given rise to this appeal is one for recovery of a debt amounting to over Rs. 11,000, representing the balance due in respect of a number of hundis which were drawn by the defendant's firm on the plaintiff firm at Cawnpore styled Moti Lal, Fateh Lal. The defence of the defendant Bishambhar Nath to the suit was that he was never a partner in the firm of Jagat Nath Thanti Mal and had no concern with that firm. He also alleged that during his minority he severed connection with the ancestral business and family property, and that if it were found that any debt was due to the plaintiffs firm he and his separate property could not be made liable therefor, inasmuch as the indebtedness was incurred at a time when he was a minor.

(2.) The Court below decreed the plaintiffs claim, finding that Bishambhar Nath was a major at the time the debts sued for were incurred. It is now admitted that this was the case, Bishambhar Nath having attained majority on the 9 of November 1901. It also found, and it is admitted here, that the business of the firm of Jagat Nath Thanti Mal was a joint ancestral family business. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Bishambhar Nath did not repudiate connection with the business when he attained age, but on the contrary ratified the partnership and rendered himself liable in respect of its transactions.

(3.) As we said in our judgment in F.A. No. 314 of 1903, a personal decree against a member of a bankrupt firm would ordinarily not be of much pecuniary value. In this case, however, it would be otherwise. The appellant was on the 1 of January 1903 appointed Treasurer of the Bank of Bengal at Lucknow and subsequently at other places, and to qualify himself for that position he was obliged to deposit with the Bank as security for the faithful discharge of his duties a sum of Rs. 50,000. He had no money of his own; but his mother-in-law Musammat Tulsha Kunwar, who is a wealthy lady of Muzaffarpur, deposited in the Bank in his name the requisite amount and so enabled him to secure the appointment. The object of the respondents, as the appellant alleges, is to put pressure on the appellant's mother-in-law by attaching this Rs. 50,000 in execution of a personal decree and so compel her to discharge their debt. We are told that sums amounting to no less than Rs. 1,70,000 have been placed to the credit of the appellant to enable him to secure the appointment of Treasurer at various places.