In a joint Hindu family business, even a junior member can manage the affairs of the business and thereby bind down all the members of the family.

1. - This is a first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Churu, in a suit for recovery of money.

2. The plaintiff-respondent Megharam filed a suit against the appellant Mohanlal and his younger brother Ramchander, respondent No. 2, for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- on the bass of a promissory note dated 18.7.66. It was alleged in the plaintiff that defendants Mohanlal and Ramchander are real brothers and they carried on business jointly in the name and style of Mohanlal Ramchander at Derasar. Defendant Ramchandra on 18. 7. 66 took a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on behalf of both the defendants and executed a promissory note and also a receipt which are on the record as Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 respectively. The two defendants Mohanlal and Ramchander filed separate written statements. Both of then denied that they lived jointly. Ramchander admitted having executed the pronote and the receipt but pleaded repayment Mohanlal denied his liability to the suit amount. It was also pleaded that the Court of Additional District Judae, Churu, had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the defendants resided at Bikaner. It was also pleaded that the promissory note was not stamped with proper stamps. The learned Additional District Judge after framing proper issues & recording evidence of the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit against both the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Mohanlal has preferred this appeal against plaintiff Megharam and impleaded his younger brother Ramchander as co-respondent.

3. It is argued on be half of the appellant that the whole of the debt due under the promissory note was paid off by Mohanlal which is evidenced by the receipt Ex. A/1. The court below has held that the defendants have failed to prove that the receipt was executed by the plaintiff Megharam. learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged this finding. It may be pointed out that at the time of the execution of the receipt, Ramchader was not present there. Mohanlal DW 1 has, of course, stated that the receipt was signed by plaintiff Megharam in his presence but his evidence has been disbelieved by the court below. Another witness examined on behalf of the defendant is the hand-writing expert K. S. Puri DW 4. I have carefully examined his testimony and I find that the reasons given by him are not at all convincing, and much value cannot be attached 'o his opinion evidence that the signatures of Megharam on Ex. A-1 are, similar to his admitted signatures. This receipt was attested to by one Tolaram and Maheshkumar. It is surprising that although Tolaram was examined on behalf of the defendants but no question was put to him whether the receipt was signed by Megharam in his presence. The attesting witness Maheshkumar has not been produced in the witness box The plaintiff Megharam in his statement has categorically denied having signed the receipt Ex. A-1. I entirely agree with the finding of the lower court that the defendants have failed to prove that the receipt was executed by Megharam. That apart DW 2 Ramchander in his statement has produced cash book entry Ex. A 10 showing credit entry for Rs. 10,000/- in the name of plaintiff Megharam in the account books of the Firm Mohanlal Ramchander. Had this debt been the repayment of the debt it ought to have shown in the same account books on the debit side. DW 2 Ramchander has admitted that the repayments are not entered in the books of the Firm Mohan Lal Ramchander but in his own separate account books The account books in which the repayment entries exist are not account books which were regularly maintained in the regular course of business arid as such no importance can be attached to the debit entries shown in such books of account.

3. It is next contended that the pronote was signed by Ramchander who is younger to defendant Mohan Lal and therefore Mohan Lal cannot be held l