RAMGOPAL GHOSE Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision in this suit depends upon whether the karta of a a Hindu joint family, who for family purposes signs a promissory note in his own name, thereby binds the other members of the family or the property belonging to the joint family. The plaintiff claims Rs. 2,026-13-4 as the balance due under two promissory notes drawn in his own favour, one for Rs. 1,500 and the other for Rs. 500, dated respectively 15 November 1916 and 23 November 1921. Each of these promissory notes purports to have been signed by Norendro Nath Sen and the defendant Dhirendra Nath Sen.

(2.) It is not disputed that certain sums were paid to the plaintiff by Noren in reduction of liability under the said notes. The last payment in respect of each note was made on the 12th February 1923.

(3.) In 1916 Noren was thirty years of age and at all material times was the karta of an undivided Hindu family living joint in estate and commensality under the Dayabhaga Law. The other coparceners were his brothers Jitendra Nath and the defendant Dhirendra Nath. Noren died in June 1923, and the second and third defendants are his heirs. Upon the evidence I am of opinion that the members of this joint family were not a trading firm, and mat the promissory notes in suit were not drawn by Noren as the manager of, or in the course of carrying on a family business : but I find as a fact that Noren signed the promissory notes in suit as the karta of the family in order to obtain funds to be expended for legitimate family purposes, and I also find that the proceeds of the loans were so applied. <JGN>Page</JGN> 2 of 8