PRASADA RAO (DECEASED) Vs. KADIYALA VENKATARATNAM (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises was one Kadiala Venkataratnam, who is now dead and is represented by his widow, the second respondent, and his younger brother, the third respondent. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to recover from the appellant and his father a sum of Rs. 7,529-9-0 representing moneys which the plaintiff said he had paid to the creditors of the appellant's father. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff's case was that the appellant's father was indebted to two Marwaris, one of the name of Chunnilal Venichand to whom he owed Rs. 2,500 and the other of the name of Sankarlal Rupchand to whom he owed Rs. 2,000. These loans had been advanced on promissory notes, Exs. A and C. The interest due brought the total figure to Rs. 7,529-9-0. It was at the request of the appellant's father that he paid off the Marwaris, and having discharged the debts payment was acknowledged by endorsements on the instruments. The money which the plaintiff had advanced was money belonging to the joint family composed of himself and the third respondent. The plaintiff did not sue as the manager of the family but brought the suit in his own name. The first point which has been taken in appeal is that inasmuch as he did not sue as the manager of the family the action cannot be maintained. This objection was not taken in the written statement, but was taken after the examination of the plaintiff, which disclosed that the money advanced was joint family money. The question was dealt with by the learned trial judge and decided against the appellant.

(2.) The question of the right of a manager of a joint Hindu family to sue in his own name in respect of a contract entered into by him in his own name was considered by the Judicial Committee in Kishan Prasad V/s. Har Narain Singh (1910) 21 M.L.J. 378 : L.R. 38 I.A. 45 : I.L.R. 33 All. 272 (P.C.). In that case, the plaintiffs had sued as the managers of a business, belonging to their joint family. The Allahabad High Court held that the suit as framed did not lie. Shamrathi Singh V/s. Kishan Prasad (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 311. The Court considered that the plaintiffs ought to have added as parties all the other members of the joint family. This decision was reversed by the Privy Council. In the judgment which was delivered by Lord Robson appears this passage: Is there any principle of law, or any custom applicable to a case like this, according to which the managing members of a Hindu joint family entrusted with the management of a business must be held incompetent to enforce at law the ordinary business contracts they are entitled to make or discharge in their own names? The defendant is, of course, entitled to insist on all the persons with whom he expressly contracted being made parties to the suit, and that was done in the action as originally framed in this case.

(3.) In Alagappa Chetti V/s. Vellian Chetti , this Court had expressed the view that a manager could not sue without joining all those interested with him, and the Judicial Committee referred to this decision in the course of their judgment in Kishan Prasad V/s. Har Narain Singh (1910) 21 M.L.J. 378 : L.R. 38 I.A. 45 : I.L.R. 33 All. 272 (P.C.). While pointing out that the case of Alagappa Chetti V/s. Vellian Chetti (1881) I.L.R. 7 Cal. 739, might be supported on the ground that the single plaintiff in that case was not shown to be the managing member of the family or to be the only partner of the business with which the litigation was concerned, their Lordships observed that the proposition that the manager could not sue without joining all those interested with him was going too far. Their Lordships then went on to hold that the original plaintiffs in the case before them were entitled, as the sole managers of the family business, to make in their own names, the contracts which gave rise to the claim, and that they properly sued on such contracts without joining the other members of the family.