Varadachariar, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendants 6 to 9 against that portion of the lower Courts decree which held the properties of the appellants tarwad liable to satisfy the plaintiffs claim under a promissory note (Ex. A) executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendant 5 and endorsed over by him to the plaintiff. The suit was in the first instance instituted against the executants alone; but as defendant 1 was also the karnavan of the tarwad, and as the plaint alleged that the promissory note has bean executed for tarwad necessity, the plaint prayed specifically for a direction for payment of the suit debt out of the tarwad properties. Defendant 1 denied the allegation that the note was executed for tarwad necessity. It however appears to have been considered safer to have this question of tarwad necessity raised by some of the other members of the tarwad: the appellants were on their own application added as defendants 6 to 9 and they put the point of tarwad necessity definitely in issue.

2. Questions were also raised as to whether the endorsement in favour of the plaintiff was supported by consideration and whether the plaintiff was a holder in due course. The