Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit and they can be disposed of here in one judgment. The appellants obtained a money decree against the third respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Parvatipur. The appellants made the third respondents sons parties to the suit and they are respondents 1, 2 and 4. The suit was on a promissory note executed by the father alone. The sons were joined as defendants on the ground that the debt was incurred for family necessities. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, as he was not satisfied that the promissory note was genuine, but on appeal to the District Judge a decree was passed against the father. In the District Court the appellants decided not to ask for a decree against the sons who were dismissed from the suit. In due course the appellants instituted execution proceedings and asked for the attachment and sale of the sons interests in the family property. The sons objected on the ground that as they had been dismissed from the suit they could not be held liable for their fathers debt. The District Munsif upheld their objection, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge held that they could