The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of joint family liability for a kuri business and the applicability of the rule of pious obligation to the defendants.

1. This Civil Revision Petition, stemming from a small cause, has raised thorny problems for which,after long arguments no rosy solutions could be found.

2. Let me state a few facts relating to the suit which was decreed by the Munsiff's Court and has been brought up by the defendants before me. A Kuri or Chitty was started by one Kumaran, now no more, admittedly out of his own resources, in which the plaintiff was a subscriber, had paid his subscriptions till the 31st instalment but 'prized' the ticket for an amount of Rs. 999/- at the 32nd round on 20-5-65. So long as Kumaran lived his kuri also survied and on the former's death in 1965 (January), it is alleged by the plaintiff that the kuri was continued by his eldest son, the 2nd defendant, for some time. Towards the prize amount of Rs. 999/- only Rs. 425/- had been paid by the 2nd defendant in six instalments. Subscriptions for subsequent months had fallen due which the foreman of the kuri was entitled to deduct from the amount due to the plaintiff. The legal representatives of Kumaran are the defendants. The lower court decreed the suit against the joint family of Kumaran, after giving credit for various instalments which had fallen due since the "prizing". The defendants challenge the decree in this revision.

3. Before me it has been contended for the revision petitioners that the kuri was Kumaran's sole business and not that of the joint family, either to begin with or later by any act of adoption or blending, and that a kuri was a speculative business which could not have been started or continued on behalf of a Hindu undivided family. The respondent controverted these points and added that, apart from the business of Kumaran being one belonging to the joint family the members of the family were bound because they had enjoyed the benefits of the business, income from which had been utilised for the reconstruction of a family house. It was also pressed before me and duly controverted by the other side that the parties were Thiyyas of Ponnani and were governed by Hindu Law, including the theory of pious obligation and so the father's debts were recoverable from the sons. It follows from what I have said that we have to consider (1) whether Kumaran's joint family was a trading family, (2) whether the kuri business had been started or adopted by or blended with the other assets of the joint family and (3) whether the Thiyyas of Ponnani, like the defendants, were governed by the Hindu law doctrine of pious obligation. I shall proceed to deal with these points together. The last word on findings of fact belongs to the trial court as against the revisional Court, except where the judgment is not in accordance with law. Viewed that way, I am not inclined to disturb the learned Munsiff's holding that "the amount due to the plaintiff as per the auction kuri is Rs. 424/- and interest from 1-4-1967 at 5%". A decree for that amount will be meaningful for the plaintiff only if he can recover it from the assets of the joint family of which Kumaran was the head presumably because there are no sufficient separate assets left behind by him. Let us therefore consider the pros and cons of the substantial controversy in this case viz. the liability of the joint family or at least of the sons, to the extent of their shares in the joint family. Admittedly, the kuri was not started as a family business nor carried on with the aid of family funds although in the light of Ex.A4 and other evidence in the case it can be safely held that there was a joint family, with property, of which Kumaran was the manager till his death. Nor am I persuaded, by any materials on record, to take the view that conducting kuries is the kulachara of the defendants' family. So then, how could this kuri or, rather, could it at all?' become a joint family business, so as to make the liabilities arising therefrom, realisable out of the assets of the family? Whether a new business commenced by the manager of