The main legal point established in the judgment is that the personal liability of junior members of a joint Hindu family for debts incurred in the course of family business depends on the nature and extent of their participation in the business, and such liability does not extend to antecedent transactions.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 5,982-14-9 from defendants 1 to 3 personally and from the family properties of all the defendants. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 to 4 and the fifth defendant is the son of the first defendants deceased brother. The defendants constitute a joint Hindu family of which the first defendant is the manager. The defendants are Nattukottai Chetties and were carrying money lending and banking business under their family vilasam V.R. Pl. M. at Rangoon and other places in Burma. The amount claimed is said to be the stridhanam money of the first plaintiff deposited by her father the second plaintiff with the first defendant. The Court below decreed the claim against the first defendant personally and against the family properties of all the defendants as it was a debt contracted by the first defendant in the course of the family business. Not satisfied with this decree, the plaintiffs have appealed claiming a personal decree also against defendants 2 and 3, the respondents herein, and the only question for decision relates to their personal liability.

2. Such liability is said to arise on the ground that, as sons I of the first defendant, they were managing the family business jointly with him and must, by virtue of such participation in management, be deemed to have become partners. A special ground of liability was also urged so far as the first respondent was concerned, namely, that he had expressly undertaken to pay the debt personally in certain letters written by him to the second appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge found that all that was established by the appellants was that the first respondent was managing the business under a power of attorney dated 13th July, 1931, executed in his favour by his father for a period of three years thereafter, and that the second respondent was writing the accounts of the firm for some time and held, on these findings, that the respondents could not be said to have become partners or to have held themselves out as such, so as to be personally liable for the debts incurred in the course of the business. The learned Judge said nothing about the special ground urged as regards the first respondent, as the point was apparently not raised before him.

3. Some criticism was directed against the finding that the first respondent was managing the firm under a power of attorney executed by the first defendant, and it was pointed out that the power of attorney was not produced by the respondents. We are not prepared to attach any importance to the non-production of the power as the appellants own witness (P.W. 2) who was the agent of another Chettiar firm in Rangoon which had dealings with the respondents firm, admitted that the first respondent was acting under a power executed by his father when he was managing the family business in Burma. But this is not, in our view, a material circumstance, for, we are clearly of opinion that even if he managed the firm in his capacity as a junior member of the family interested in the business, no personal liability could arise by virtue of sudh management in the circumstances of this case. For, the deposits to which the suit relates were all made prior to 10th December, 1924 and duly stamped vouchers evidencing the terms of the deposits including the final deposit letter (Ex. A dated 11th December, 1930) on which the suit was brought, were all executed from time to time only by the first defendant, before the respondents began to participate in the conduct of the business in 1931. Assuming, therefore, that the respondents must be deemed to have become partners or to have held themselves out as such in relation to the family business in Burma by reason of such participation, they could not, in our opinion, be held to be personally liable in respect of the pre-existing debts of the firm.

4. On the question of personal liability of junior