KRISHNADHAN BANERJI Vs. SANYASI CHARAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits to recover money, one on a hand-note and the other on a hath chitta. In the lower Court four suits were tried together. Appeals have been preferred against the decrees in two only, Suit No. 53 of 1914 corresponding to Appeal No. 138 of 1916 and Suit No. 243 of 1914 corresponding to Appeal No. 140 of 1916.

(2.) It appears that one Bhuban Mohan had two Karbars, one for fuel wood at Munshigunge, and another for rice and other articles at Kalibazar. He died in Kartick 1306 (November 1899) leaving five sons, viz., Nilratan, Amullya, Sattya Charan, Fatik arid Sanyasi Charan. The last two were minors, and Nilratan, the eldest brother, was appointed 1890. The ancestral Karbars, viz? the Munshigunge and the Kalibazar business were carried on, on behalf of the joint family, by Nilratan as Karta, assisted by the other two adult brothers. A new Karbar in rice at Orphangunge was started after the death of Bhuban Mohan and carried on on behalf of the joint family. The plaintiff in Suit No, 53 alleges that for the purposes of the joint family Karbars Rs. 5,000 was borrowed from him on a hand-note on the 7th June 1908, which was executed by Nilratan, Amullya and Sattya Charan. The plaintiff in Suit No. 243 bases his claim on a hath-chitta for Rs. 19,700, dated 1st October 1909,and executed by the four elder brothers, Fatik having then attained majority.

(3.) It appears that the family Karbars failed and the other sons of Bhuban Mohan have been declared insolvents. Some of the creditors attempted to have the defendant Sanyasi Charan also declared an insolvent but were unsuccessful. In the course of the insolvency proceedings, Nilratan was replaced by the one Motilal Roy as guardian of the minor Sanyasi Charan. The plaintiffs have shared in the distribution of the assets of the insolvents and they. seek to recover the balance of debts, due to them from the defendant Sanyasi Charan alone. The Court below has held that the defendant is not liable and the plaintiffs have appealed.