KISTUR CHAND TEWARI Vs. BABU RAJANI KANTA MUKHERJEA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is in a suit which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 15 April 1936, to recover Rs. 9500 on two promissory notes, both dated 17 August 1932 (Ex. 5 and Ex. 6). The first note was for Rs. 7101 and the second for Rs. 505/4. There is no dispute about the consideration, it being admitted before us that the plaintiff did really advance Rupees 7101 on 5 August 1928, on a promissory note (Ex. 3) and the two promissory notes, Ex. 5 and Ex. 6 are renewals.

(2.) To follow the points in controversy tha following genealogical tree is necessary.

(3.) All the three promissory notes - Ex. 3, Ex. 5 and Ex. 6 - were signed by Ramchandra (defendant 1) and it was he who received from the respondent Rs. 7101 at the time when Ex. 3 was executed. Ex. 3 was signed by him for self and as constituted attorney of Ramprosad, Kisturchand, Premsukh and Ramnarayan. Interest was paid from time to time, and the fact of payment endorsed on the promissory note. The first payment was made by Sewnarayan and the remaining payments by Ram Chandra. The last but one payment made on 15 April 1931 was endorsed as follows: Ram Chandra Tewari for self and as constituted attorney for the partners of the firm Joy Kissen Ram Prosad by Ram Chandra Tewari." Exs. 5 and 6 were executed by Earn Chandra for self and as constituted attorney of Harnarayan, Sew-narayan (Ram Prosad being then dead), Kisturehand and Premsukh and all of them are described as partners of the firm Joy Kissen Ram Prosad. Part payments of interest were made on different occasions and some of the endorsements of payment were signed by Earn Chandra simpliciter and some by him as "constituted attorney of the partners of the firm of Joy Kissen Eamprosad." The defendants to the suit are the persons indicated in the genealogical tree. The appellants do not dispute before us, although issues were raised by them in the lower Court, the fact that the defendants are members o? a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School and the family was and is a family of traders. On the evidence we also find to the same effect. We are further of opinion that Earn Chandra was at all material times the karta of the joint family and as such the manager of the joint family business. We also find that he also held powers of attorney from the persons whose names he signed on the three promissory notes and also had authority to borrow. We also hold that the loan was taken from the respondent for the family business and was actually applied to meet the liabilities of the same. We further hold that the family business was conducted at different places and at different times under different names, that a business was actually carried under the name and style of Joy Kissen Ramprosad and the said business was a joint family business. These findings we arrived at1 on the evidence as it stands and for this suit only. As we agree with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge on the aforesaid points it will be sufficient if we indicate briefly our reasons for arriving at the aforesaid findings.