This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench as Satyanarayana Rao, J., sitting alone, and Rajamannar, C.J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, J., constituting a Division Bench thought that the decisions in Doraiswami v. Nagaswami1, and Thangachami Chetti v. Kanakasabapathi2, require reconsideration. The facts may be briefly stated. China Ramayya, the third defendant, his son Nageswara Rao, the first defendant, and the first defendant’s son Anjaneyalu, the second defendant constituted members of a joint Hindu family. The first defendant executed a promissory note dated 5th June, 1946, in favour of the plaintiff, Venkamraju. On 6th November, 1946, Venkamraju instituted O.S. No.270 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tenali, for recovering the amount due on the said promissory note. To that suit, he impleaded the first defendant’s minor son Anjaneyalu as second defendant and the first defendant’s father China Ramayya as third defendant. Liability was sought to be fastened on to the second defendant on the ground that he was liable to discharge his father’s debt from and out of his share in the family properties. The third defendant was made a party on the g