Court must raise points for determination.

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

This Letters Patent appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 20.4.1992, confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Erode in O.S.No.115 of l976.

2. The plaintiff, who lost before the trial Court and also before the learned single Judge of this Court, has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.32,644 with interest and for costs, against the 1st defendant personally and against the joint family assets in the hands of the defendants.

3. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent executed Ex.A-1 promissory note for Rs.15,000 in favour of one Ranganayagi, wife of S.Ganapathi of B.P.Agraharam village, Erode Taluk on 9. 1970, promising to repay the said sum either to the said Ranganayagi or her order on demand with interest at 21.60 per cent per annum and that the 1st defendant has paid a sum of Rs.500 towards interest on 4. 1973 and made an endorsement to that effect on the back of the promissory not and thereafter did not pay the balance amount due on the said promissory note. According to the appellant/plaintiff, respondents 1 and 2 constitute members of an undivided Hindu coparcenary and the 3rd respondent is the female member of the family, that the family possessed ancestral properties, which are enjoyed in common, that the suit debt was borrowed by the 1 st respondent for the joint family and the respondents 2 and 3 have enjoyed the benefits of the borrowed amount, that they being members of the joint family, are also liable to discharge the debt from and out of the assets of the joint family and that since the amount has not been paid, the suit has been laid for the recovery of the same.

4. The suit was resisted by me respondents, contending mat the respondents have not received any amount from the said Ranganayagi, that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and, mat the 1st respondent was borrowing amounts as hand loans for his business from S.Ganapathi, the husband of the said Ranganayagi, and that for the due repayment of those hand loans, the said Ganapathi had obtained the 1st defendant’s signature in two blank promissory notes and also two signatures on the back of those two promissory notes. It is also their further case that the said Ganapathi has filled up one such promissory note and used the same for the present suit and that when the transactions between the 1st defendant and the said Ganapathi were over, the said Ganapathi evaded to return the said promissory notes. Thus, it is contended that no consideration has passed under the suit promissory note. It is also contended that the signature on the back of the blank promissory note has been utilised for the endorsement of payment of Rs.500 on 4. 1973. It is also contended that it is false to allege that the defendants 1 and 2 constitute members of an undivided Hindu coparcenary and that the defendants are not liable to repay any amount under the suit promissory note. It is also contended that Ranganayagi had no sufficient funds to advance such huge amount. They also denied that the plaintiff got assignment of the suit promissory note from the said Ranganayagi for proper and valuable consideration.-

5. The trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration?

2. Whether the endorsement dated 4. 1973 is true?

3. Whether the assignment in favour of the plaintiff is true?

4. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are members of a joint family of which the first defendant is the manager?

5. To what relief are the parties entitled?

On 12. 1980 issue No.(l) was deleted and recast as follows:

Whether the first defendant executed the suit pronote and if so whether the same is not supported by consideration?

On 23. 1980, the following additional issues were also framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is not a holder in due course?

2. Whether the suit is b