Varadachariar, J.

1. These appeals arise out of O.S. Mos. 17 and 39 of 1931, on. the die of the Sub-Court of Palghat. Some of the questions raised in these suits have already been dealt with by us in the judgment delivered by us in Appeals Nos. 253 and 350 of 1933. The present appeals have been preferred by defendants Nos. 7 to 9 in these suits. They are the sons of defendant No. 5 who joined as a surety in the promissory notes which gave rise to these suits. Defendant No. 5 has been held liable for the debts; the appellants contend that as these debts were not borrowed for any necessity of their family, the family property should not be held liable for the discharge of the debts. The lower Court applied the rule of the Hindu Law and held that as the debts are not illegal or immoral, the sons shares in the family property are liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the fathers debt, independently of any question of family necessity. We may mention that in the first instance these defendants were not impleaded as parties to the suits. They got themselves impleaded on their own application and in the written statement filed by there they alleged in para. 2 that under th