Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. The short question for determination in this civil revision petition is whether the second defendant, petitioner herein, can be made liable on a promissory note executed by his partner, the first defendant. The Court below has found that the first defendant was the managing partner of a rice. mill business carried on in partnership with the second defendant and others under the name of Sri Kusumaharinadha Rice Mill at Amalapuram in East Godavari District, and that the money was borrowed for the purposes of the business. On these findings it has passed a decree for the sum claimed with interest and costs against both the defendants personally and also against the assets of the firm.

2. The promissory note runs thus:

Promissory note executed and delivered on 10th December, 1939, corresponding to Sunday, the 30th day of Karthika Bahula of the year Pramadi, in favour of Sait Devichand Bhutaji Garu, resident of Amalapuram, by Kalidindi Narayanaraju Garus son Satyanarayanaraju, partner of Sri Kusumaharinadha Rice Mill and resident of the said village. On account of my necessity this day, namely, for the purpose of doing paddy business, in the Mill, the amount