Judgment

Lord Simonds. - This appeal is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna of 8th February 1944, which affirmed (save for a certain modification in regard to interest) a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur of 9th November 1988.

[2] At all relevant times the appellants carried on business as traders at Sambalpur as a Hindu joint family under the name and style of Ramanand Ganpatrai. Appellant 1 was the managing member ; appellants 2 and 3 aer his nephews and appellant 4 is the son of appellant 3.

[3] The respondents are the sons and heirs of one Thanduram, who was plaintiff 1 in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises but has since died. At all relevant times these three persons carried on business as a Hindu joint family as dealers in rice and money-lenders at Sambalpur under the name and style of Thandu-ram Bajranglal.

[4] It is not disputed that between these two firms there had been prior to 8th November 1934, a course of commercial transactions nor is it now disputed that on that date appellant 1 as manager purported to sign a hand note in the following terms : Sri Ganeshji. From the good place Sambalpur. I am writing to brother Thanduramji Bajrang Lal from Sambalpur. Compliments of Ramanand Ganpat Rai. On adjustment of account Rs. 33,307-9-3 (Rupees Thirty-three thousand three hundred and seven, annas nine and pies three) is due to you till Kartik Sudi 1, 1991. I shall pay you the money when you demand it. Dated the Kartik Sudi 1, 1991 Sambat. On 4 one-anna Revenue Stamps. Sd. Ramanand Ganpatrai, By the pen of Nagarmal. Nor, though at an earlier stage in the proceedings it was contended that at the date of the hand note the appellants other than appellant l had for many years been living and messing separately from him and that for that reason the hand note did not bind them, are its validity and binding effect challenged except upon the single ground that the hand note was given in respect of debts which were already barred by the law of limitation. It is clear that this plea cannot avail appellant l who himself signed the note. This was conceded by learned counsel for the appellants. On the other hand, it appears to be well-established law that a manager as such is not competent to bind the other members of a joint family by a promise to pay a debt already statute barred. If, therefore, the appellants other than appellant 1 were able to prove that the hand nose had been given in respect of such debts, it appears that they would not be liable upon it.

[5] By a pleader s letter of 24th December 1936, the respondents demanded payment of the sum alleged to be then due from the appellants and, that letter being unanswered, on 30th September 1937, filed their suit, claiming the principal sum of Rs. 33,307 and interest Rs, 3,651 together with future interest.

[6] The learned Subordinate Judge found in favour of the respondents and made an order against all the appellants for the full amount claimed together with future interest at 6 per cent, per annum. It seems that owing to what can only have been an oversight the order did not provide for any interest pendente lite. Upon what is now the only question outstanding in regard to the principal sum due on the note, the learned Judge held against the appellants that there was "no definite evidence on their side to establish that the dues were time-barred."

[7] This finding of fast, if it is sustained, is sufficient to dispose of the case and their Lord-ships do not think it necessary further to examine the reasoning of the learned Judge in which he holds that, even if the debts were time-barred, appellant 1 had general authority to bind the other members of the family.

[8] The appellants appealed to the High Court at Patna and that Court, while affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge, proceed-ed on somewhat different grounds. Reuben J., after pointing out that "the last real transaction between the part