Ramaprasada Rao, J:- All the defendants excepting the 9th and the 10th defendants in O.S. No. 19 of 1971 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram, are the appellants. The 1st defendant and his undivided brother Venkatachalam Pillai were traders and for purposes of their business and for other necessities were borrowing monies from the plaintiff (one or the other of them). In order to secure such borrowings made, they executed along with the second defendant a security bond Exhibit A-1 dated 24th November, 1960 in favour of the plaintiffs charging the suit properties for the repayment of such amounts borrowed by them and to be borrowed by them from time to time from the plaintiffs. We shall consider in detail the various clauses in the security bond, but suffice it however to state here that the security for the repayment of the advances to be made by the plaintiffs was limited to Rs. 40,000. On the date of the bond itself two promissory notes were executed namely, Exhibit A-2 for a sum of Rs. 10,000 and Exhibit A-4 for a sum of Rs.5,000 in favour of the first and second plaintiffs respectively. Thereafter, in December, 1960, defendants 1 and 2 and Venkatachalam Pillai borrowed under Exhibit A-6 dated 12th December, 1960 a sum of Rs. 12,000 from the first plaintiff and on 29th October, 1963 under Exhibit A-8 defendants 1 and 2 and Venkatachalam Pillai borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 from the second plaintiff and under Exhibit A-9 dated 29th October, 1963 from the first plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,000. In all, therefore, the first plaintiff advanced Rs. 32,000 to defendants 1 and 2 and Venkatachalam Pillai under the promissory notes as enumerated above and the second plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 11,000 to defendants 1 and 2 and Venkatachalam Pillai. After giving credit to the various amounts paid towards interest under each of the promissory notes, the plaintiffs have instituted the present action for recovery of the sum of Rs. 43,000 by way of principal and a sum of Rs. 33,732 towards interest and sought for a charge on the suit properties and in view of the limitation in the security bond asked further for a personal decree against the executants of the promissory notes and/or their heirs who were admittedly the members of the joint family, which originally consisted of the first defendant and his undivided brother Venkatachalam Pillai. Venkatachalam Pillai died prior to suit as an undivided member leaving behind him the fifth defendant, his wife, his daughters the 6th and 7th defendants and his son the 8th defendant, as his heirs. Defendants 2 to 4 are the undivided sons of the first defendant. It may also be mentioned here that the second defendant was also the co-executant in the security bond, defendants 3 and 4 being the undivided sons of the first defendant and as the debts are for family necessity and for family business, the plaintiffs are seeking reliefs as against the estate of the family in the hands of such undivided members. Defendants 9 and 10 are subsequent alienees of the secured properties and they are impleaded in order that the result of the proceedings may also bind them. The first defendant also died pending the suit leaving behind him his second wife the 11th defendant, his daughter the 12th defendant and his sons defendants 13 and 14. They are also impleaded as heirs representing the estate of the first defendant, apart from defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs’ case is that the debt is binding on defendants 2 to 4 and defendants 11 to 14, as the debts were contracted for legal necessity. The plaintiffs are claiming interest as per the contract rate. The suit has been filed by both the plaintiffs, as the security bond in their favour is one and indivisible and they have also agreed to a decree in their favour being passed jointly. In the alternative they would say that if the Court so desires, a separate decree might be passed in favour of each of the plaintiffs for the respective amounts due to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document